J G ENGINEERS PVT LIMITED Vs. CALCUTTA IMPROVEMENT TRUST
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-166
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on
January 25,2002
J.G.ENGINEER'S PRIVATE LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
CALCUTTA IMPROVEMENT TRUST
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
U P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED VS. INDURE PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED]STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. J C BUDHARAJA GOVERNMENT AND MINING CONTRACTOR [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. POPULAR BUILDERS CALCUTTA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
BONGAIGAON REFINARY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD VS. G R ENGINEERING WORKS LTD [LAWS(GAU)-2014-1-58] [REFERRED TO]UNION OF INDIA THRU DY. CHIEF ENGINEER NORTHERN RAILWAYS VS. TRG INDUSTRIES PVT. LTDIL [LAWS(DLH)-2009-10-216] [REFERRED TO]
RASHTRIYA CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD VS. J S OCEAN LINER PTE LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2012-3-123] [REFFERD TO]
LLOYD INSULATIONS INDIA PVT LTD VS. CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2006-2-69] [REFERRED TO]
BONGAIGAON REFINARY & PETROCHEMICALS LTD. VS. G.R. ENGINEERING WORKS LTD. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PAM DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2005-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) VS. BUILDERS CORPORATION PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2007-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
MANRAJ ENTERPIRSES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2022-10-130] [REFERRED TO]
MAYUR ENGINEERS VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(HPH)-2003-4-8] [REFERRED]
SATISH KUMAR VS. UOI [LAWS(DLH)-2008-7-252] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ANUPAM BUILDER [LAWS(BOM)-2003-2-70] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. S & S TECHNOCRATS PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-248] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Y. K. Sabharwal, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The dispute and differences between the contractor -appellant and respondent Calcutta Improvement Trust (CIT) were determined by award dated 30th Sept., 1999. The arbitrator held that the contract was wrongly terminated by CIT and awarded in favour of the contractor a sum of Rs. 24,80,000/- besides interest. The award was challenged by the CIT by filing an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. That application was rejected by a learned single Judge of the High Court. The appeal of the CIT was, however, allowed by the Division Bench and the award was set aside. The contractor has challenged the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench.
(3.)The main grounds on which the award has been set aside by the impugned judgment are two. First, that the question of the wrongful termination of the contract was an excepted matter and, thus, not arbitrable. Second, the arbitrator has not considered the counter claim of the CIT and thereby has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law.
(2.)The dispute and differences between the contractor -appellant and respondent Calcutta Improvement Trust (CIT) were determined by award dated 30th Sept., 1999. The arbitrator held that the contract was wrongly terminated by CIT and awarded in favour of the contractor a sum of Rs. 24,80,000/- besides interest. The award was challenged by the CIT by filing an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. That application was rejected by a learned single Judge of the High Court. The appeal of the CIT was, however, allowed by the Division Bench and the award was set aside. The contractor has challenged the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench.
(3.)The main grounds on which the award has been set aside by the impugned judgment are two. First, that the question of the wrongful termination of the contract was an excepted matter and, thus, not arbitrable. Second, the arbitrator has not considered the counter claim of the CIT and thereby has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.