Meghalaya High Court

Arb.P./1/2012 of M/S KRISHNA ENTERPRISE Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS on 13 December 2013

COURT OF MEGHALAYA Arb.Petn. No. 1 of 2012 M/S Krishna Enterprise, Pariong Villa, Kench’s Trace, Shillong – 4 (Meghalaya), Represented by Shri Parmode Sharma, Proprietor. …Petitioner -Versus- 1. Union of India, Represented by its Garrison Engineer, Shillong Division. 2. The

THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

Arb.Petn. No. 1 of 2012

M/S Krishna Enterprise, Pariong Villa, Kench’s Trace, Shillong – 4 (Meghalaya), Represented by Shri Parmode Sharma, Proprietor.

…Petitioner

-Versus-

1. Union of India, Represented by its Garrison Engineer, Shillong Division. Division.

2. The Engineer in-Chief Delhi, H.Q. (Army) Kas House, New Delhi-11. 11.

3. The Chief Engineer, Shillong Zone (Army) S.E.Falls, Shillong -11.

4. The Commandant, Engineer, S.E.Falls, Shillong.

5. The Garrison Engineer, Shillong Division, Shillong -2.

…Respondents

Shri B.K.Deb Roy, Advocate and Shri S.Deka, Advocate present for the petitioner.

Shri R.Deb Nath, CGC, present for the respondents.

13-12-2013

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

ORDER

Shri B.K.Deb Roy, Advocate, present for the petitioner.

Shri R.Deb Nath, Advocate, present for the respondents.

By means of this petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has sought appointment of arbitrator to decide the claim of Rs. 9,35,470/- in respect of Agreement No. GE/SHL/27 of 2006-2007 with the respondents.

2. Heard.

Page 1 of 2

3. It is pleaded in the petition that the petitioner, a Contractor entered into an agreement dated 30-6-2010/28-9-2006. It is further pleaded that since certain modifications were required in the work, as such the period of contract was extended. The petitioner has raised a claim of Rs. 9,45,470/- in respect of said work regarding which it is pleaded that after giving notice for arbitration the respondents have not appointed an arbitrator, hence the application.

4. In the objection/affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the question of fact has been disputed in respect of the claim, but it is not disputed that the defendant had entered into an agreement with the petitioner in respect of which the contract No. GE/SHL/27 of 2006-2007 and there is an arbitration clause in the agreement. It is also clear that no arbitrator is appointed by the respondents.

5. In the above circumstances, this petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is disposed of with the direction that Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pronoy Kumar Mushahari (Retd) is appointed arbitrator to enter into the arbitration and to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties in respect of the aforesaid claim. The Registry of this Court is requested to send the letter of request to Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pronoy Kumar Mushahari (Retd) for his consent to enter into the reference.

6. Accordingly, Arb.Petn. No. 1 of 2012 stands disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

S. Rynjah

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead