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

2002 Supreme(MP) 1094

S.P.KHARE
M. P. Housing Board – Appellant
Versus
Satish Kumar Raizada – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.BHATTI, V.R.Rao,

Judgment

( 1. ) THIS is a revision by the M. P. Housing Board (judgment-debtor) against the order by which its objections in the proceedings for enforcement of award under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as the act) have been rejected.

( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that the M. P. Housing Board awarded a contract to the respondent/decree-holder on 7-10-1992 for construction of 28 HIG Houses at Kohefiza, Bhopal for Non-Resident-Indians. The contractor was asked to carry out certain works which were not included in the original contract by the Engineer-in-Charge of the work. The contractor as per Clause 13 of the contract was bound to carry out those works. The contractor did those works and completed the construction of the houses. Then arose the dispute for the extra work done by the contractor.

( 3. ) CLAUSE 13 of the Contract provides : "in the event of a dispute the decision of the Deputy Housing Commissioner of the circle shall be final". Clause 29 of the Contract contains the "arbitration clause". The first two paras of this clause are relevant and these are as under :-- "except as otherwise provided in this contract all questi

























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