Disposed¶21

Jamshedpur Utilities and Service Company Limited through Its Managing Director Shri Ashish Mathur v. Uranium Corporation of India Limited through Its Managing Director

Jharkhand HC2 Jul 2024WPC/1575/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

JUSCO v. UCIL; W.P. (C) No. 1575 of 2018; High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi; Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.; decided 2 July 2024; contract agreement Clause-7; mutual settlement; arbitration clause; writ petition disposed of with liberty; work site Hyderabad; Companies Act, 1956; no case law cited; no monetary quantum.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent no.1 for a fresh mutual settlement and, failing that, to invoke the Arbitration Clause as per Clause-7 of the contract agreement kept at annexure-2 of the writ petition. ¶21

Jamshedpur Utilities and Service Company Limited… — Company and Corporate | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1575 of 2018

¶2

Jamshedpur Utilities & Services Company Limited (JUSCO), a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Boulevard Road, Northern Town, Bistupur, P.O. & P.S. –Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District –East Singhbhum (Jharkhand), through its Managing Director, namely Shri Ashish Mathur, son of Late Mahesh Narayan Mathur, age 53 years, resident of Bungalow No.2, A Road West, N Town, P.O. –Bistupur, P.S. –Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District –East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)

¶3

.... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) (A Government of India Enterprises), through its Managing Director having its registered office at Jaduguda Mines, P.O. –Jaduguda Mines, P.S. –Jaduguda, District –East Singhbhum-832102 (Jharkhand).

¶6

Director (Technical), Uranium Corporation of India Limited, having its office at Jaduguda Mines, P.O. –Jaduguda Mines, P.S. –Jaduguda, District –East Singhbhum -832102 (Jharkhand).

¶7

Director (Finance), Uranium Corporation of India Limited, having its office at Jaduguda Mines, P.O. –Jaduguda Mines, P.S. –Jaduguda, District –East Singhbhum -832102 (Jharkhand).

¶8

Joint Director (TS), Uranium Corporation of India Limited, having its office at Jaduguda Mines, P.O. –Jaduguda Mines, P.S. –Jaduguda, District –East Singhbhum -832102 (Jharkhand).

¶9

Chief Manager (A/cs), TMPL Project, Uranium Corporation of India Limited, having its office at Jaduguda Mines, P.O. –Jaduguda Mines, P.S. –Jaduguda, District –East Singhbhum -832102 (Jharkhand).

¶10

…. Respondents

¶11

P R E S E N T

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

¶14

W.P. (C) No.1575 of 2018 1

¶15

: Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate : Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, Advocate

¶16

By the Court:-

¶17

Heard the parties.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though this

¶19

Writ Petition has been filed with several prayers but drawing attention of this Court to the contract agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no.1, the copy of which has been kept at annexure-2 at page no.35 of the brief, it is submitted that Clause -7 of the contract agreement provides for amicable settlement of any dispute, that may arise of any matter, arising out of or in connection of the contract initially by way of mutual settlement, failing which, by arbitration and submits that this writ petition be disposed of giving liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the respondent again for a mutual settlement and failing which, to invoke the arbitration clause of the contract agreement.

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the work site was at Hyderabad, so for the talk for a mutual settlement or arbitration, the officers of the petitioner have to go to Hyderabad. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the officers of the petitioner are ready to go to Hyderabad for settlement.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid facts, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent no.1 for a mutual settlement again and in case, the same will not succeed, to

¶22

W.P. (C) No.1575 of 2018

¶23

¶24

invoke the Arbitration Clause as per Clause -7 of the contract

¶25

agreement kept at annexure-2 of this writ petition.

¶26

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶27

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 2md July, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-

¶28

W.P. (C) No.1575 of 2018

¶29

Jamshedpur Utilities and Service Company Limited through Its Managing Director Shri Ashish Mathur v. Uranium Corporation of India Limited through Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamshedpur Utilities and Service Company Limited through Its Managing Director Shri Ashish Mathur v. Uranium Corporation of India Limited through Its Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrika Sen Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jiyaul Haque Vs the State of Jharkhand

Purushottam Kumar Rai Alias Purushottam Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms Kumar Cold Storage through Its Proprietor Subhas Kumar Vs National Horticulture Board through Its Managing Director

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kaushik Das Vs the Union of India