Partly allowed

M/s Vinod Kumar Jain v. Municipal Corporation Raigarh And Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC8 Sept 2015ARBA/11/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the High Court directed that Retd. Judge V.K. Shrivastava be appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. The court accepted the respondents' agreement to the appointment and dismissed the application otherwise.

What did the court decide?

Directed appointment of Hon'ble Shri Justice V.K. Shrivastava as Sole Arbitrator; parties to settle remuneration.

M/s Vinod Kumar Jain Vs Municipal Corporation Raigarh And… — Arbitration | Chhattisgarh HC (2015)

¶1

Page 1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ARBA No. 11 of 2014

¶5

M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain, A Partnership Firm through Partner Vinod Kumar Jain, S/o. Shri Hanuman Prasad Jain, Aged about 48 years, R/o. College Road, Jashpurnagar, District Jashpur (C.G.).

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Municipal Corporation Raigarh, through Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raigarh (C.G.)

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation Raigarh (C.G.).

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Jha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶13

Order On Board

¶14

08/09/2015

¶15

This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator.

¶16

It is the case of the applicant that a contract was awarded for construction of R.C.C. Road, Drains, Footpath & Divider etc. from Jute Mill near R.O.B. to Chhatamuda Chowk for Gaurav Path. Accordingly, the work order was issued on 01.10.2008 and the period for completion of the said work was 18 months including rainy season. The scheduled date of completion was 30.04.2010. However, for some dispute or other, the agreement which was entered into for the work was terminated by the respondents on 16.08.2011 and thereafter, the dispute was raised initially before the Mayor of the Corporation but the dispute remained undecided. Subsequently, an Arbitrator was appointed by the Corporation, which was not agreed to by the applicant.

¶17

Page 2

¶18

The respondents before this Court submits that they have agreed for appointment of the Arbitrator. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, it is directed that the Hon'ble Shri Justice V.K.Shrivastava, Retd. Judge of High Court of Chhattisgarh, is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the difference/ dispute. The remuneration of the Arbitrator shall be settled by the parties.

¶19

With the above direction/observation, the arbitration application stands disposed of. No order as to cost.

¶20

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE

¶21

Ashok

M/s Vinod Kumar Jain v. Municipal Corporation Raigarh And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Vinod Kumar Jain v. Municipal Corporation Raigarh 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

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Suresh Chandra Agrawal

Shri Shiv Ram Vs Shri Banafer Sahu and Ors.

Mangluram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Jatinder Singh Rana Vs Gabbar Kewat and Others

Gabbar Kewat and Anr. Vs Mahesh Kumar Dhruv and Ors.

Majid Khan Vs Ahmad Mohammad