Dismissed

M/S. Kadbrotec Engineering Indusries v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2011APP/207/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Appeal No.207 of 2011 with Notice of Motion No.1113 of 2011, the High Court rejected the appellant's challenge to the single judge's reversal of an arbitral award. The court held that the award should be reversed due to unproven evidence and no interference was called for regarding the finding on payment.

What did the court decide?

Appeal rejected; Notice of Motion disposed of.

M/S. Kadbrotec Engineering Indusries Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 appeal 207-11.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL NO.207 OF 2011 WITH

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1113 OF 2011 IN

¶5

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.212 OF 2007

¶6

M/s.Kadbrotec Engineering Industries ..Appellant Vs

¶7

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

¶8

..Respondent

¶9

Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b.Mahesh Menon, for appellant.

¶10

Mr.Sunil Gangan i/b.R.M.G.Law, for respondent.

¶11

CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH &

¶12

R.G.KETKAR, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 4th JULY, 2011

¶14

P.C:

¶15

Heard. Perused record.

¶16

2] It is clear from the record that the learned Arbitrator has relied

¶17

upon the Chart at Exhibit “M” to the statement of claim without anybody’s proving the contents of the Chart at Exhibit “M”. In our opinion, therefore, the learned single Judge was perfectly justified in reversing the award.

¶18

2 appeal 207-11.odt

¶19

3] The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent had not made out the case that the amount of Rs. 5,90,411.19 ps was paid in full and final settlement. Therefore, the learned single Judge should not have recorded that finding.

¶20

4] It is obvious that the finding was recorded because it was the case of the respondent that the amount was paid in full and final settlement. In our opinion, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, no interference is called for. The appeal is rejected.

¶21

5] In view of the disposal of the Appeal, Notice of Motion No.1113 of 2011 stands disposed of.

¶22

[R.G.KETKAR, J.] [D.K.DESHMUKH, J.]

M/S. Kadbrotec Engineering Indusries v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Kadbrotec Engineering Indusries v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Clemant Soares Vs 1. Fr. Leopold Soares and Anr.

Smt. Priti T. Desai and Ors. Vs Vardhaman Developers Ltd. and Ors.

Sanjay Maheshwari and 4 Ors. Vs Shyam Roopchand Jaisingh and 8 Ors.

Gajanan Pednekar Vs Commissioner, Mumbai Municipal Corporation, and Ors.

Akhtar Hussain Dawood Julfa and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunil Baburao Gaikwad Vs Malegaon Municipal Corporation and Ors.