Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.LAKSHMAN, V.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY
APSRTC, Represented by its Chief Civil Engineer-II Musheerabad, Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
R. Venkat Reddy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arbitration commenced in 1989 with multiple legal challenges. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. reference court allowed additional claims to arbitration. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 3. arguments presented by both corporation and respondent regarding additional claims. (Para 13 , 14 , 27) |
| 4. reference court retains authority post-arbitrator appointment. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. protocols regarding amendments and additional claims in arbitration. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 24 , 26) |
| 6. appointment of a new arbitrator to proceed with pending claims. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 32) |
ORDER
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Mr. R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners - Corporation and Mr. Arpith, learned counsel representing Mr. Vivek Jain, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent.
2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 05.12.2011 in I.A. No. 338 of 2011 in O.S. No. 545 of 1989 [hereinafter “impugned order”] passed by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad [hereinafter “the Reference Court”].
3. This is an unfortunate case where the Respondent had invoked arbitration proceedings in 1989. However, due to the present pro
The Reference Court retains jurisdiction to address subsequent applications after appointing arbitrators, allowing additional claims related to ongoing arbitration.
An arbitrator cannot entertain claims beyond what is specified in the court's order of reference, ensuring jurisdictional limits are maintained.
No power has been invested by Parliament in the Court to remand the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal except to adjourn the proceedings for the limited purpose mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 3....
Point of Law : Power to modify, vary or remit the award does not exist under Section 34 of the Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of parties' consent in appointing arbitrators and the consequences of their conduct in adhering to the arbitration agreement.
Claims withdrawn do not reset the limitation period; the original cause of action's date governs the timeliness of arbitration requests.
The court established that arbitrators do not become functus officio unless they have entered the reference and an explicit timeframe has elapsed, as per the Arbitration Act.
The jurisdiction of an arbitrator is limited to the claims referred to him by the appointing authority; claims not raised before the Dispute Resolution Committee are not arbitrable.
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
