M/S. WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. M/S. JUD CEMENTS LTD.
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
M/S. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd.
M/S. Jud Cements Ltd.
Click here to view full judgement.
PRAFULLA C.PANT, J. -
(1.) BY means of this application moved under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the applicant has sought
appointment of arbitrator.
(2.) HEARD .
Brief facts of the case are that the applicant entered into an agreement with the respondent on 9 -8 -2007 whereby the applicant was
required to supply the respondent a Clinkerisation plant for a contract
price of Rs. 95 crores excluding taxes/duties. The machinery was required
to be imported from Japan. It is pleaded that the respondent out of Rs.
9.5 crores required to be paid as advance, paid only Rs. 1 crore to the applicant. It is alleged that in November, 2008, the respondent informed
the applicant that due to financial constraints, the term of the
agreement could not be complied with and sought time till April, 2009 for
making payment of outstanding dues. It is further alleged that the
respondent handed over 2(two) cheques dated 30 -7 -2009 and 30 -10 -2009 each
of Rs. 6 crores but the same on presentation before bankers got
dishonoured. It is further stated that on 23 -1 -2012, the applicant
appointed Hon 'ble Mr. Justice V.P.Tipnis (former Judge, Bombay High
Court) as arbitrator and called upon the respondent to appoint second
arbitrator by serving notice. When no response was received, Arbitration
Application No. 146 of 2012 was filed before the Bombay High Court under
Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent
opposed the said application before the Bombay High Court and raised
objection as to territorial jurisdiction of said Court. The Bombay High
Court vide its order dated 15 -3 -2013 dismissed the application on the
ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Hence, this application
before this Court.
(3.) THE respondent has opposed the application before this Court on the ground that after dismissal of the application by the Bombay High Court,
this Court cannot entertain the arbitration application under Section 11
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is also contended on
behalf of the respondent that the applicant should have filed an appeal
before the Supreme Court against the order of the Bombay High Court. It
is also argued that since the Bombay High Court did not grant liberty to
the applicant to file this petition, as such, the same cannot be
entertained by this Court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.