EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD DEVELOPMENT Vs. ATLANTA LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
January 16,2014
Executive Engineer, Road Development
Appellant
VERSUS
Atlanta Limited
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY AND ORS. VS. KAISER ALUMINIUM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC AND ORS [REFERRED TO]Cited Judgements :-
SUNWAY OPUS INTERNATIONAL (P) LIMITED VS. SRI RAGHAVA CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2016-12-42] [REFERRED TO]SHAJI AUGUSTINE VS. CHITHRA WOODS MANOR WELFARE ASSOCIATION [LAWS(KER)-2021-9-290] [REFERRED TO]
YASHWARDHAN RAGHUWANSHI VS. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE [LAWS(MPH)-2021-2-32] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS COOPERATIVE LTD. VS. M/S. MANISH ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES [LAWS(ALL)-2022-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH VS. SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-31] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. ANITA [LAWS(MPH)-2022-10-86] [REFERRED TO]
M.G. MOHANTY VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAMBHAI AND BROTHERS VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-8-202] [REFERRED TO]
TUSHARBHAI NATWARLAL PATEL VS. RAKSHIT NATWARLAL PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2015-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
POTLABATHUNI SRIKANTH VS. SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LIMITED [LAWS(APH)-2015-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYA HIRANANDANI VANDREVALA VS. NIRANJAN HIRANANDANI [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-198] [REFERRED TO]
ANILKUMAR PHOOLCHAND SANGHVI AND ORS. VS. CHANDRAKANT P. SANGHVI AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
AATASH NORCONTROL LIMITED VS. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD [LAWS(GJH)-2023-6-9] [REFERRED TO]
NASIM AKHTAR VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
MIRA SINHA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-9-123] [REFERRED TO]
JAYAMURUGAN GRANITE EXPORTS VS. SQNY GRANITES AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-54] [REFERRED TO]
ESS KAY FINCORP LIMITED VS. SURESH CHOUDHARY [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-8-324] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT P. SANGHVI & ORS. VS. ANILKUMAR PHOOLCHAND SANGHVI & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-12-200] [REFERRED TO]
BISWAJIT DEB VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ORS. [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIL SHRIVASTAVA VS. MAGMA FINCORP LTD. [LAWS(CHH)-2018-6-86] [REFERRED TO]
ANILKUMAR PHOOLCHAND SANGHVI AND ORS. VS. CHANDRAKANT P. SANGHVI AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-12-94] [REFERRED TO]
CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. UMA EARTH MOVERS [LAWS(CAL)-2024-2-117] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHANTA MALIK VS. SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
WEST BENGAL HOUSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. M/S. IMPRESSION [LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-74] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAND KATHURIA AND ORS. VS. TRIKUTA CHEMICALS PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2015-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
GAIL GAS LTD VS. BAPU INDUSTRIES [LAWS(DLH)-2017-1-57] [REFERRED TO]
NCC INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS LIMITED VS. TAQA INDIA POWER VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2022-1-177] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. ASSOCIATED CONTRACTORS [LAWS(SC)-2014-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAM HOUSING PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. THAKUR MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-7-107] [REFERRED TO]
TRF LTD. VS. ENERGO ENGINEERING PROJECTS LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-67] [REFERRED TO]
MARWAR HOTELS A REGISTERED COMPANY VS. NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED, A REGI COMPANY [LAWS(GJH)-2014-10-122] [REFERRED]
JAYCEE HOUSING PVT. LTD VS. REGISTRAR (GENERAL), ORISSA HIGH COURT,CUTTACK [LAWS(SC)-2022-10-53] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD VS. P.M. ELECTRONICS LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-405] [REFERRED TO]
GEMINI BAY TRANSCRIPTION PRIVATE LTD. VS. INTEGRATED SALES SERVICE LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2018-2-123] [REFERRED TO]
RAKSHIT NATWARLAL PATEL VS. TUSHAR NATWARLAL PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-238] [REFERRED]
VIJAY COTTON AND FIBER COMPANY VS. AGARWAL COTTON SPINNING PVT LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2019-2-34] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUJA LEYLAND FINANCE LIMITED VS. AKASH ROAD CARRIER AND ANOTHER [LAWS(CAL)-2015-6-135] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)State of Maharashtra, through its Public Works Department, awarded a contract dated 12.7.2000 to the respondent-Atlanta Limited (a public limited company) for the construction of the Mumbra byepass. On 11.5.2005, a supplementary agreement for additional work was executed between the parties. It would be relevant to mention, that the Mumbra byepass falls on National highway no. 4. The construction envisaged in the contract awarded to the respondent-Atlanta Limited was, from kilometer 133/800 to kilometer 138/200. The contract under reference envisaged, settlement of disputes between the parties, through arbitration. Atlanta Limited raised some disputes through a communication dated 1.10.2009. It also invoked the arbitration clause for resolution of the said disputes. The State of Maharashtra as also Atlanta Limited nominated their respective arbitrators, who in turn, appointed the presiding arbitrator. On the culmination of proceedings before the arbitral tribunal, an award was rendered on 12.5.2012. Almost all the claims raised by Atlanta Limited were granted. In sum and substance, Atlanta Limited was awarded a sum of Rs.58,59,31,595/- along with the contracted rate of interest (of 20 per cent per annum), with effect from 1.10.2009. Atlanta Limited was also awarded a sum of Rs.41,00,000/- towards costs. All the counter claims raised by the State of Maharashtra, before the arbitral tribunal, were simultaneously rejected.
(2.)On 7.8.2012, the State of Maharashtra moved Miscellaneous Application no. 229 of 2012 and Miscellaneous Application no. 230 of 2012 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arbitration Act') before the District Judge, Thane. The State of Maharashtra through the aforesaid Miscellaneous Applications sought quashing and setting aside of the arbitral award dated 12.5.2012.
(3.)On the same day, i.e., 7.8.2012, Atlanta Limited filed Arbitration Petition no.1158 of 2012 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court'), for the setting aside of some of the directions issued by the arbitral tribunal (in its award dated 12.5.2012). Atlanta Limited also claimed further compensation, which according to the respondent, had wrongfully not been considered by the arbitral tribunal.
(2.)On 7.8.2012, the State of Maharashtra moved Miscellaneous Application no. 229 of 2012 and Miscellaneous Application no. 230 of 2012 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Arbitration Act') before the District Judge, Thane. The State of Maharashtra through the aforesaid Miscellaneous Applications sought quashing and setting aside of the arbitral award dated 12.5.2012.
(3.)On the same day, i.e., 7.8.2012, Atlanta Limited filed Arbitration Petition no.1158 of 2012 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court'), for the setting aside of some of the directions issued by the arbitral tribunal (in its award dated 12.5.2012). Atlanta Limited also claimed further compensation, which according to the respondent, had wrongfully not been considered by the arbitral tribunal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.