Disposed

M/s.Om Sakthi Constructions v. The Govt of Puducherry

Madras HC2 Feb 2018OP/929/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointing an arbitrator. The Respondents undertook to pay the outstanding dues to the Petitioner, leading the Court to close the petition.

What did the court decide?

Closed the petition for appointment of an arbitrator upon undertaking to pay outstanding dues.

M/s.Om Sakthi Constructions Vs The Govt of Puducherry — Arbitration | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 02.02.2018

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

O.P.No.929 of 2017

¶7

M/s.OM Sakthi Constructions, represented by its Partner No.11, Annai Velankanni Street, Kamaraj Nagar, Pondicherry 605 011. .. Petitioner -vs1. The Govt. of Puducherry, represented by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Puducherry 605 001. 2. The Superintending Engineer, Circle-II, Public Works Department, Puducherry 605 001. 3. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, PWD, Puducherry 605 001 .. Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint a qualified person as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and respondents at Puducherry.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Senthil Kumar

¶10

For Respondent : Mr.Kumaran, GA (Pondicherry)

¶11

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This application is filed seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes between the parties arising out of Agreement No.810/PW/PHD/SWS/13-14, dated 14.3.2013.

¶15

Heard Mr.D.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Kumaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

¶16

Mr.Kumaran, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, very fairly, circulates a communication dated 4.12.2017 issued by the Executive Engineer to the effect that the work has been completed by the petitioner and as per the final bill, an amount of Rs.8,52,187/- is liable to be paid to the Contractor which has been unduly delayed on account of paucity of funds.

¶17

In the light of the same, Mr. Kumaran, undertakes on behalf of the respondents that the outstanding amount of Rs.8,52,187/- will be released positively to the petitioner on or before 5.3.2018. Consequently, the security deposit of an amount of Rs.4,11,000/- will

¶18

be liable to be returned within a period of one week therefrom. Recording the said undertaking, this petition is closed.

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach this Court in

¶22

the event of any default in the undertaking recorded. No costs.

¶23

msr/sl

¶24

02.02.2018

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.

¶28

Msr/sl

¶29

OP.No.929 of 2017
02.02.2018

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

M/s.Om Sakthi Constructions v. The Govt of Puducherry

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Om Sakthi Constructions v. The Govt of Puducherry

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

B.Vasudevan Vs G.Sathyan

Dr.Poongothai Balaji Vs a.Anbuvanan

Monotech Systems Limited Vs The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

Jayamma Vs C.K.Ramasamy

N.Kannan Vs Abdul Sadhar

M/s.Star music records Vs M/s.Noble brodcasting P L