C.J.’s Court v. Garhwal
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The application is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. General Manager Construction, Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. 74-1, Rajpur Road, Dehradun ……………. Opposite parties. ……….. Hon. A. A. Desai, C.J. Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arvind Vashishta, learned counsel for the respondents appeared. The applicant is a contractor…
Judgment
son of Sri Mewa Ram ………………….. Applicant C.J.’s Court Versus
Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. 74-1, Rajpur Road, Dehradun through its Managing Director
Operative part
General Manager Construction, Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. 74-1, Rajpur Road, Dehradun ……………. Opposite parties. ……….. Hon. A. A. Desai, C.J. Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arvind Vashishta, learned counsel for the respondents appeared. The applicant is a contractor firm and has entered into contract with the respondents for construction. The applicant has applied for appointment of an Arbitrator pursuant to section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Undisputedly, there has been a controversy regarding payment of the bill of the contractor. Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that as per terms of agreement Managing Director of the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam is the sole arbitrator. Sri Arvind Vashistha, learned counsel for the respondents agreed to this. I, therefore, nominate Managing Director, Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., Dehradun as the sole Arbitrator. He shall complete the arbitration proceedings within a period of three months. The application is disposed of accordingly. (A.A. Desai, C.J.) Dt.12.03.2003 A
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The application is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 12 Mar 2003.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.