Dismissed

MD Alam v. Tata Steel Ltd. through Its Director Department of Land

Jharkhand HC6 Dec 2019A.APPL/10/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ranchi dismissed an arbitration application filed by Md. Alam seeking appointment of an arbitrator regarding land disputes with Tata Steel Ltd. The court held the application was not maintainable due to the absence of any arbitration agreement on record or invoked in notices.

What did the court decide?

The application for appointment of an arbitrator was dismissed as not maintainable for lack of an arbitration agreement.

MD Alam Vs Tata Steel Ltd. through Its Director Department of… — Arbitration | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

Arbitration Application No. 10 of 2019

¶3

Md. Alam, son of Abul Hassan … … Petitioner Versus

¶4

Tata Steel Ltd, through it’s Director, Department of Land, Mumbai

¶5

The General Manager, West Bokaro Collieries Ltd., DistrictRamgarh.

¶6

The Chief R.S. Officer, Tata Steel Ltd. Business Centre at Bistupur, District- Singbhum East

¶7

The Land Officer, EMVEESS Infraventure, Hazaribagh

¶8

… … Respondents

¶9

¶10

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. P. Gangopadhyay, Advocate : For the Respondents ---

¶11

03 /06.12.2019 Heard Mr. P. Gangopadhyay, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶12

2. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “(i) For issuance of an order for appointment of an Arbitrator or Arbitrators for settling the disputes of dealing with the land measuring an area of 54.83 acres of land with the West Bokaro Collieries of Ghato Tanrd, a Unit of Tata Steels Ltd, from the Raiyats, where the applicant have the Agreements with the Raiyats since 2011, and now the Agents of the Respondent Company Tata Steels Ltd have been trying to deal the matter with the Raiyats bi-passing the Applicant; and

¶13

(ii) For restraining the Respondent Tata Steels Ltd. And/or any of its Agent from dealing with the land, in respect to which the Applicant has entered into Agreement with the Raiyats.”

¶14

3. This Court finds that there is an office note objecting to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that neither the arbitration agreement is on record nor there is any letter invoking the arbitration clause.

¶15

4. Upon query from the counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel is not in a position to satisfy this Court regarding the existence of any arbitration agreement between

¶16

¶17

the parties. This Court further finds that the notices which have been annexed along with the present petition also do not refer to arbitration agreement, rather they talk about settlement of the dispute.

¶18

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the present application for referring the dispute to arbitration, is not maintainable as there is no arbitration agreement between the parties.

¶19

6. This arbitration application is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

¶20

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶21

Pankaj

MD Alam v. Tata Steel Ltd. through Its Director Department of Land

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Alam v. Tata Steel Ltd. through Its Director Department of Land

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

M/S P.R.Fuels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India And Anr.

Urmila Sinha Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Cbi

Jai Ram Singh Alias Jaipal Singh Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Vigilance Department

Mahendra Nath Singh And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Harjit Singh Arora Alias H S Arora Vs Union Of India Through C B I

Harbhajan Singh Dhillon Alias H S Dhillon Vs Union Of India Through C B I