The High Court dismissed an arbitration petition as qua the questions previously raised and addressed in Arbitration Case No. 77 of 2010.
Provision on whether pending arbitral questions can be adjudicated if already resolved in a co-related proceeding.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arbitration Case No. 122 of 2010 Date of decision: 14th July, 2011
M/s S.P.Singla, Constructions (P) Ltd. 47 Sector-9, Panchkula (Haryana).
.......Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Engineer (The Employoer) Haryana PWD B&R Br. Sector 19-B, Chandigarh.
........Respondent
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate and Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Pardeep Singh Punia, Addl. A.G.Haryana for the State of Haryana.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No
Hemant Gupta, J.(Oral)
Learned counsel for the parties agree that the question
raised in the present petition are the questions raised in Arbitration
Case No. 77 of 2010. For the reasons recorded therein, the present
petition is dismissed.
[HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE
14th July, 2011
Shivani Kaushik
M/s S.P. Singla, Constructions (P) Ltd.
The Chief Engineer (The Employer) Haryana PWD B&R Br. Sector 19-B, Chandigarh
Hemant Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
