Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
Panjawani Electrical Engineers and Consultants – Appellant
Versus
Larsen and Toubro Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of contract dispute and prior suit withdrawal. (Para 1 , 2 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. respondent argues suit abandonment bars arbitration. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. limited section 11 scope; defences for tribunal. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 4. arbitrator appointed; contentions reserved. (Para 9) |
ORDER
Relying on clauses 23 and 24 of the contract between the parties, the petitioner has applied for appointment of an arbitrator after issuing notice dated 22.11.2024 under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (The A & C Act).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the arbitration clause and to the Section 21 notice. He pointed out that such notice was replied to by the respondent on 14.01.2025 stating that the notice had been issued after the lapse of more than three years and that the cause of action does not survive.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent responded to these contentions by referring to the earlier suit filed by the petitioner before the District Judge, Commercial Court, Delhi in C.S.(Comm.) No.606 of 2024. Learned counsel points out that said suit was withdrawn by the petitioner herein/plaintiff therein without obtaining leave of the Commerci
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
