REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

CREF FINANCE LIMITED Appellant

V/S

PURI CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

LORD WESTBURY L.C. IN A.G. V. H.I. SILLEM [REFERRED]
WESTBURY C. IN A.G. V. SILLAM [REFERRED 17.]
CHANDRI ABDUL MAIID V. JAWAHAR LAL [REFERRED 5.]
COLONIAL SUGAR REFINING CO V. IRVING [REFERRED]
DAVERY IN PONNAMMA V. ARUMAGAM [REFERRED 12.]
RAJA KULKARNI V. STATE OF BOM [REFERRED 7.]
MELA RAM AND SONS VS. COMMR OF INCOME TAX PUNJAB [REFERRED 8.]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MOHINDRA SUPPLY CO [REFERRED]
SOUTH ASIA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. S B SARNP SINGH [REFERRED 10.]
LAKSHMIRATAN ENGINEERING WORKS LIMITED VS. ASST COMMISSIONER JUDICIAL I SALES TAX KANPUR RANGE KANPUR [REFERRED 22.]
SHANKAR RAMCHANDRA ABHYANKAR VS. KRISHNAJI DATTATREYA BAPAT [REFERRED 3.]
S KALAWATI VS. DURGA PRASAD [REFERRED 2.]
SHAH BABULAL KHIMJI VS. JAYABEN D KANIA [REFERRED 19.]
RANI CHOUDHURY VS. LT COL SURAJ JIT CHOUDHURY [REFERRED 9.]
R RAJAGOPAL REDDY VS. PADMINI CHANDRASEKHARAN [REFERRED 23.]
NEW KENILWORTH HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ORISSA STATE FINANCE CORPORATION [REFERRED 11.]
LOKMAT NEWSPAPERS PVT LIMITED VS. SHANKARPRASAD [REFERRED 21.]
UNION OF INDIA VS. A S DHUPIA [REFERRED 24.]
MANGALA BAI VS. SAYYAD FAKIR [REFERRED 4.]
MOOLCHAND KEVALCHAND DAGA VS. KISSINDOSS GIRDHARDOSS [REFERRED]
BAL KISHAN VS. TULSA BAI [REFERRED 6.]
MADHAVDAS DEVIDAS VS. VITHALDAS VASUDEODAS [REFERRED ILR (1952) BOM 570= 13.]
B THANKAPPAN VS. TRIVANDRUM DIST CO OP BANK LTD [REFERRED 20.]
NAGENDRA NATH DEY VS. SURESH CHANDRA DEY [REFERRED 16.]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed purportedly under Clause (10) of the Letters Parent of Lahore High Court as applicable to Delhi High Court. Challenge is to the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 12.2.2001 in IFAO 75 OF 2001 holding the same to be not maintainable under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996( in short the Act). Subject matter of the said appeal was order dated 12/01/2001 passed by the Arbitrator appointed pursuant to the directions given by this Court in OMP 173/2000.

(2.) First appeal was filed as an application before the Arbitrator to implead respondents 2 to 6 herein was rejected by the Arbitrator on the ground that there was no arbitration agreement between the appellant and the said respondents and therefore, there is no question of impleading respondents 2 to 6 herein as parties to the arbitration proceedings. In the FAO, stand of the appellant was that order of the Arbitrator is under Section 16(2) of the Act and consequently an appeal against the said order is maintainable. Learned Single Judge held that the matter raised before the Arbitrator by the appellant and decision taken therein was not encompassed by Section 16(2) of the Act and therefore, the plea was not maintainable.

(3.) A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent as to the maintainability of the present appeal with reference to Section 37(3) of the Act. While issuing notice on 28.2.2001, it was indicated by us that the appeal shall be heard on the question of maintainability and on merits if it is held to be maintainable and therefore we have permitted the parties to address us on the question of maintainability.

Click here to view full judgment.

CREF FINANCE LIMITED Vs. PURI CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address