SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Ori) 22

G.B.PATTANAIK
MANAGING DIRECTOR – Appellant
Versus
NATABAR MOHANTY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.K.NAYAK, B.MISHRA, N.K.MISHRA, R.K.BOSE, R.K.RATH, S.B.NANDA, S.K.NANDA

G. B. PATTANAIK, J.


( 1 ) THE short question which arises for consideration in this revision is whether a co-operative society can be construed to be an authority controlled by the State Government within the ambit of S. 41a of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was introduced by way of amendment by Orissa Act 3 of 1983, so that if a dispute arises where such society is a party to the dispute then the reference is to be made to the Arbitration Tribunal in accordance with the said provision of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act' ).

( 2 ) OPPOSITE part No. 1 is a contractor and had entered into an agreement with the petitioners for construction of some factory buildings in the spinning mills of the petitioners at Tora in the district of Sambalpur. In respect of execution of the said work, dispute arose and opposite party No. 1 wanted that the matter should be referred to an arbitrator invoking the arbitration clause in the agreement. Petitioner No. 1 was of the view that the arbitration can be made only by the Tribunal under S. 41a of the Act and not by anybody else. Opposite party No. 1, however, nominated one Superintending Engineer, who is opposite party No. 2, as the Ar









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top