Kaushik Mukherjee Vs the Steel Authority of India Limited and Anr.

between the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that certain amounts have been wrongfully deducted from his bills by the respondents. He has filed this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator for resolution of the disputes between the parties.

¶13

The contract between the parties contains an arbitration clause which contemplates arbitration in accordance with the rules of the Arbitration of Indian Council of Arbitration. Admittedly, no request has been made by the petitioner to the said Council for initiation of arbitration proceedings by appointment of arbitrator. Hence, Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the respondents rightly points out that this application is premature.

¶14

2

¶15

At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this application with leave to pursue the appropriate course of action. Such leave is granted.

¶16

AP NO.304 of 2020 is dismissed as withdrawn leaving the petitioner free to take such course of action as he may be entitled to in law.

¶17

(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)

¶18

spal

Kaushik Mukherjee v. the Steel Authority of India Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushik Mukherjee v. the Steel Authority of India Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarun Kanti Das Vs Union of India and Anr.

Dwarika Nath Mondal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Radheshyam Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

The Brith Waite Burn and Jessop Construction Co. Ltd. Vs General Manager Eastern Railway

M/S. Balajee Education Private Limited Vs Bishwajit Barnwal

Aircare Enterprises and Ors. Vs Lever Foundation, West Bengal and Anr.