Ncc Limited, through its Authorized Representative, having its Registered Office at Hyderabad v. Uttar Pradesh Housing and Development Board, through its Commissioner and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2026ARBT/29/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Civil Misc. Arbitration Application No. 29 of 2025 (ARBT No. 29 of 2025); NCC Limited v. Uttar Pradesh Housing and Development Board; arbitration clause invocation notice 23.11.2020; supplementary final bill 22.04.2021; limitation benefit of Supreme Court Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 (extension of limitation); notice issued; listed week commencing 11.05.2026; Jaspreet Singh, J.; order dated April 20, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to the respondents; steps to be taken within a week; matter listed in the week commencing 11th May, 2026. ¶¶20

Ncc Limited, through its Authorized Representative, having its Registered Office at Hyderabad vs Uttar Pradesh Housing and Development Board, through its Commissioner and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CIVIL MISC. ARBITRATION APPLICATION No. - 29 of 2025

¶3

Ncc Limited, Through Its Authorized Representative, Having Its Registered Office At Hyderabad

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Uttar Pradesh Housing And Development Board, Through Its Commissioner And 3 Others

¶7

Through Its Commissioner And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prashast Puri, Shreyash Shukla, Utkarsh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶8

Court No. - 8

¶9

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

The record indicates that by means of order dated 12.03.2025, a coordinate Bench of this Court had required the learned counsel for the petitioner to file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the material to indicate that petition has been filed within the limitation.

¶12

In furtherance thereof, a supplementary affidavit dated 14th August, 2025 has been filed.

¶13

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disputes had arisen regarding the outstanding payments which were to be recovered from the respondents.

¶14

The petitioner had furnished his final bills which was followed by another supplementary final bill dated 22.04.2021.

¶15

It is urged that none responded to the same, as a consequence, the petitioner by means of notice dated 23.11.2020 had invoked the arbitration clause and the said notice also did not evoke any response and thereafter the instant petition has been filed on 28.02.2025.

¶16

ARBT No. 29 of 2025

¶17

¶18

It has also been urged that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the order passed by the Apex Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020 in Re:- Cognizance for Extension of Limitation and prima facie the case of the petitioner would be within the period of limitation.

¶19

The matter requires consideration.

¶20

Let the notice be issued to the respondents.

¶21

Steps be taken within a week, returnable at an early date.

¶22

List this matter in the week commencing 11th May, 2026.

¶23

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶24

April 20, 2026

¶25

Asheesh

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ncc Limited, through its Authorized Representative, having its Registered Office at Hyderabad v. Uttar Pradesh Housing and Development Board, through its Commissioner and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ncc Limited, through its Authorized Representative, having its Registered Office at Hyderabad v. Uttar Pradesh Housing and Development Board, through its Commissioner and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arvind Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 6 Others

Raghupati Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Nashim-Ul-Haq and 2 Others vs Meraj-Ud-Din and 5 Others

Managing Committee National Inter College Thru. Manager Kaushlesh Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and Another

Sakshi Shriwastav Thru. Her Natural Guardian, Mother Sami Srivastava vs Navoday Vidyalay Samiti Thru. Commissioner and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 2 Others