Extract
Aslam Mohd. Merchant VS. Competent Authority & Ors.
The Judgement Information System CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2461 of 2008PETITIONER: CONSOLIDATED ENGG.ENTERPRISESRESPONDENT: PRINCIPAL SECY. IRRIGATION DEPTT. & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/04/2008BENCH: CJI K.G. BALAKRISHNAN & J.M. PANCHALJUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10311 of 2005) With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2462 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.15619 of 2005)HATTI GOLD MINES COMPANY LTD. ..... APPELLANTS Versus M/S VINAY HEAVY EQUIPMENTS ..... RESPONDENTJ.M. PANCHAL, J.Civil Appeal No.2461 of 2008 @ SLP(C) NO.10311/2005 Leave granted.2. The instant appeal is directed against judgment dated April 4, 2005 rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Misc. First Appeal No.4465 of 2003, by which, decision dated October 24, 2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in A.S. No.2 of 2000 dismissing the application submitted by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act for short) as time barred has been set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Court with a direction to proceed further with the matter in accordance with law.3. The appellant is an enterprise engaged in civil engineering construction as well as development of infrastructure. It entered into an agreement dated January 20, 1989 with the respondent for construction of earthen bund, head sluices and the draft channel of the Y.G. Gudda tank. During the subsistence of the contract, disputes arose between the parties. Therefore, the appellant invoked Arbitration clause No.51 of the agreement pursuant to which the disputes were referred to the sole arbitrator for adjudication. The sole arbitrator made his award on April 10, 1999 in favour of the appellant. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the respondents preferred an application dated July 5, 1999 to set aside the award as contemplated by Sect...
See the full content of this document