Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2007 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (10) TMI 545 - SUPREME COURTWhether a discretionary jurisdiction would be refused to be exercised solely on the ground of existence? Whether the amount deposited with the learned advocate for the writ petitioners was sufficient to cover the carrying cost and other charges in terms of clause 5.0, is a question of fact and for resolving such disputes detailed investigation is necessary which is beyond the scope of the original writ applications? Held that:- In exercise of a jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, all disputes and differences between the parties be referred to the arbitration in terms of clause 9.0 of the contract. Reference to arbitration would be deemed to be one under the 1996 Act. The parties would be at liberty to approach the High Court for any other or further direction(s). The learned Arbitrator would make an Award within a period of four months from the date of entering into reference. All amount deposited by the appellant with the learned advocate on record towards the carrying charges should be paid to the second respondent, wherefor an appropriate receipt would be given. Such payment shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties before the Arbitrator and shall be subject to any other or further order or direction that may be issued by the learned Arbitration in his Award.
|