Back
APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Utpal Datta, Son of Late Upendra Chandra Datta – Appellant
Versus
Railtel Corporation of India Limited (A Government of India Undertaking) Represented By Its Executive Director – Respondent
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
[2. Petitioner has sought appointment of an arbitrator invoking Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to settle the dispute between the parties. Petitioner had earlier submitted a representation before the respondents vide Annexure-8 dated 04.01.2021. As per the petitioner, the agreement between the parties was entered on 18.06.2014 for excavation of trenches and laying of OFC through ducts, testing, commissioning and maintenance of OFC in 40 blocks of 8 Districts (in the State of Tripura) and 4 blocks of 1 District (in the State of Meghalaya) by RailTel on behalf of BBNL.
The contract value was Rs.47,42,411/-. The date of completion of project was 180 days from the date of issue of Letter of Acceptance (LOA) dated 18.06.2014. The work could be completed successfully on 27.10.2017 and handed over to the authorities who issued a Provisional Acceptance Certificate on the same date. The respondent issued a revised LOA on 03.02.2020 whereby the volume of work was reduced and the amount of GST beyond the scope of original LOA dated 18.06.2014 was communicated for negotiation
The specified venue in an arbitration clause denotes the seat of arbitration, thus limiting jurisdiction to designated courts and excluding others.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the venue of arbitration specified in the contract determines the jurisdiction of the court to entertain applications for the appointment of a....
2020 Rules which came into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette, i.e. 12.02.2020, cannot be given retrospective effect. The intention of Government of India to make the 20....
The appointment of an arbitrator is valid under revised jurisdictional laws, superseding past dismissals on grounds of territorial limitations.
The court held that the validity of claims and the arbitrability of related disputes must be referred to arbitration, rejecting the respondent's claims of non-compliance with contractual protocols li....
The determination of the arbitration 'seat' and 'venue' is critical; if the 'venue' does not specify a 'seat', jurisdiction lies with the designated court under the arbitration agreement.
The seat of arbitration clause, fixing the seat of arbitration at New Delhi, resulted in courts at New Delhi being exclusively competent to entertain petitions under the 1996 Act, in exercise of its ....
The seat of arbitration, once agreed upon, confers exclusive jurisdiction to the designated court, preventing the invocation of other jurisdictions.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
