Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2013 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 800 - SC - Companies LawArbitration agreement - Whether Clause 30 of B-1 Agreements entered into between the Government of Maharashtra and the appellant is in the nature of an arbitration clause - Held that:- neither of the judgments relied upon by appellant help the case. In Mallikarjun Vs. Gulbarga University [2008 (8) TMI 798 - SUPREME COURT] case, this Court noted that Superintending Engineer, Gulbarga Circle, Gulbarga was not an officer of the University and he did not have any authority or jurisdiction either to supervise the construction work or issue any direction to the contractor in relation to the project. The Court also emphasized that the parties had agreed that any dispute arising from the contract would be referred to the decision of the Superintending Engineer. These factors are missing in the instant case. Likewise, Clause 4 of the work order which came up for interpretation in Punjab State v. Dina Nath (2007 (5) TMI 564 - SUPREME COURT) contemplated resolution by the Superintending Engineer of any dispute arising between the department and the contractor. Therefore, the relevant clause of the work order was rightly treated as an Arbitration Agreement - High Court had rightly held that Clause 30 of B-I Agreement is not an Arbitration Agreement and the trial Court was not right in appointing the Chief Engineer as an Arbitrator - Appeal dismissed.
|