Allowed

M/S M D Constructions v. M/S Laxmi Prime Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

Rajasthan HC10 Jan 2020CMAP/366/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan bench appointed Justice Shiv Kumar Sharma (Retired) as sole arbitrator to adjudicate a construction dispute between the petitioner and respondent following a notice under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Justice Shiv Kumar Sharma (Retired) as sole arbitrator; disposal of the arbitration and miscellaneous applications.

M/S M D Constructions Vs M/S Laxmi Prime Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.366/2017

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Arbitration Application No. 5/2015

¶5

M/s M.D. Constructions A Registered Partnership Firm Through One Of The Partner Mr. Dinesh Mittal, 63-A, Prem Nagar Vister, Behind Mangal Bihar Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur 302018, Rajasthan.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Laxxmi Prime Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Regd., Office At C-710, Budhvihar, Alwar 301001, Rajasthan Through Director Mr. Yogesh Agrawal, C-710, Budhvihar, Alwar 301001, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Choudhary for Mr.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

10/01/2020

¶14

Matter come up on an application seeking appointment of arbitrator.

¶15

An agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 17.6.2013 for carrying the construction work. It is a case of the petitioner that dispute has arisen and the respondent has not made available the material, which was required to be made available for the purpose of construction, while the petitioner was always ready for getting with the construction work. The matter was earlier sent for mediation where the parties entered into an agreement for proceeding with the work as per the terms of the agreement dated 17.6.2013. A

¶16

[CMAP-366/2017]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- was advanced by the respondent in favour of the petitioner. Now, an application has been moved by the petitioner stating that the respondent has not provided the material and even in terms of the mediation proceedings, the dispute has arisen between the parties.

¶19

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that material was made available, but the petitioner has not performed his part.

¶20

I am thus satisfied that there is a dispute existing between the parties. As per Clause-14 of the aforesaid agreement dated 17.6.2013, in case of any dispute and differences between the company and the contractor in respect of work order or agreement, the matter shall be referred to the arbitrator. Thus, the aforesaid is an arbitration clause and therefore, under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court finds that as a notice for appointing arbitrator was sent by the petitioner, which was duly received by the respondent, for sending the matter for arbitration.

¶21

Accordingly, Justice Shiv Kumar Sharma (Retired), 878, Mahavir Nagar-I, Near Durgapura Railway Station, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, is appointed to adjudicate the dispute as a sole arbitrator. Both the parties shall remain present before the arbitrator on the suitable date to be fixed by him. The fee of the arbitrator shall be governed by the Manual of 2009, as amended from time to time. The formal consent of Justice Shiv Kumar Sharma (Retired) shall be taken for the said purpose.

¶22

Accordingly, the arbitration application is disposed of.

¶23

[CMAP-366/2017]

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

In view of disposal of arbitration application, S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.366/2017 is also disposed of.

¶26

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶27

SUNIL SOLANKI /19/193

M/S M D Constructions v. M/S Laxmi Prime Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S M D Constructions v. M/S Laxmi Prime Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

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

Roop Narain Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Umar Mohammad S/O Shri Jabroo B/C Mev Vs State of Rajasthan

Purushottam and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Dr. Kanwardeep Randhawa D/O Late M.S. Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Ram Godara S/O Shri Ganesh Ram Godara Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Sandeep Trading Corporation Vs Union of India