VOLTAS LIMITED Vs. ROLTA INDIA LIMITED
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
February 14,2014
VOLTAS LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
Rolta India Limited
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MAJOR RETD INDER SINGH REKHI VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE FOREST CORPORATION VS. ABDUL KARIM WANI [REFERRED TO]
K RAHEJA CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED VS. ALLIANCE MINISTRIES [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION VS. SAW PIPES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL IN VS. BURN STANDARD CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH KONKAN DISTILLERIES VS. PRABHAKAR GAJANAN NAIK [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD VS. MOTOROLA INDIA PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
REVAJEETU BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS VS. NARAYANASWAMY AND SONS [REFERRED TO]
VAN VIBHAG KARAMCHARI GRIHA NIRMAN SAHKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT VS. RAMESH CHANDER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GOA VS. PRAVEEN ENTERPRISES [REFERRED TO]
RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LTD VS. DEWAN CHAND RAM SARAN [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
LAXMI TRADING CORPORATION VS. PEC LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-355] [REFERRED TO]PRACTICAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. COMET OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-2-181] [REFERRED TO]
SHUSHILA DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-43] [REFERRED TO]
MAHALAXMI CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. SUKETUBHAI JAYANTILAL SHAH [LAWS(GJH)-2015-12-165] [REFERRED TO]
DHRUB NARAYAN SINGH SON OF LATE DEODHARI SINGH VS. BAIKUNTH SINGH SON OF BASANT SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-2017-4-173] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMATH UPADHYAYA AND ORS. VS. BHOGLATA DEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2016-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED, AND OTHERS VS. M/S S.N. AGARWAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-3-158] [REFERRED TO]
NANDANI MEDICAL LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. VS. M.P. LAGHU UDYOG NIGAM MARYADIT [LAWS(MPH)-2016-8-51] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS. JAI BHARAT CONSTRUCTION CO. AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-133] [REFERRED TO]
S K RAMASAMY VS. S S CHELLAKUTTI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-2-186] [REFERRED TO]
ASHES DEB VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
THE KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. SIRIDI SAI INDUSTRIES AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-7-221] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. A.K. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(CHH)-2015-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SURENDER @ KALWA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-7-77] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH ASIA HUMAN RIGHTS DOCUMENTATION TRUST & OTHERS VS. SUHAS CHAKMA & OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-2017-12-358] [REFERRED TO]
MAGAN MAL SETHIA AND ORS. VS. PIJUSH SAHA [LAWS(CAL)-2015-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHA GUPTA VS. A.K.GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2020-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. VS. ARTSON ENGINEERING LTD. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-10-149] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMAL KANTI CHAKRABORTY VS. PRANABENDU MOHAN CHAKRABORTY AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-1-43] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. MADAN LAL GULATI [LAWS(HPH)-2014-12-144] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT BHUSHAN VS. JATINDER KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2019-4-170] [REFERRED TO]
E K PALANISAMY VS. P C KRISHNAN; A BALASUBRAMANIAM; C BALACHANDRAN; RAJAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-313] [REFERRED]
INDRABHAN AND OTHERS VS. MAANWATI AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-220] [REFERRED TO]
H.S. TULI AND SONS BUILDERS (P) LTD. AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-2-106] [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD VS. AFCONS GUNANUSA JV [LAWS(SC)-2022-8-110] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU MARITIME BOARD VS. SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2019-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
ASF BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED VS. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2024-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
J. VIJAYAKUMAR VS. K. SRINIVASAN [LAWS(MAD)-2015-11-94] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. OM PRAKASH [LAWS(DLH)-2014-4-95] [REFERRED TO]
KALASTRI HARIBABU S/O LATE VENKATESHWARLU R/O GUNTURPALLY VILLAGE, SANGEM MANDAL WARANGAL DISTRICT VS. AVUNURI RAJU S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS R/O URUS, KAREEMABAD, WARANGAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2016-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
ALUPRO BUILDING SYSTEMS PVT LTD VS. OZONE OVERSEAS PVT LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-2-184] [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LT VS. NATIONAL AGRICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERA [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-440] [REFERRED]
MADHAV GOGIA VS. K. FATIMA KHURSHEED [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-165] [REFERRED TO]
VINAY KUMAR JAIN AND 4 OTHERS VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-139] [REFERRED]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS. VS. ESSAR OIL LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2016-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
TEN CREATIVE STUDIO PVT LTD & ORS VS. NELSON PLANNING & DESIGN PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-110] [REFERRED TO]
M/S PAWAN HANS HELICOPTERS LTD VS. IDEB PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2017-7-217] [REFERRED TO]
JUMLA JAMINDARAN VILLAGE PANGI AND ORS. VS. JUMLA JAMINDARAN VILLAGE TELANGI AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-9-76] [REFERRED TO]
P. BALA VS. SEARCH LIGHT PRODUCTION BY ITS PROPREITOR, RAJIV BABBAR [LAWS(MAD)-2022-1-274] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN HANS HELICOPTERS LIMITED VS. IDEB PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-249] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.
(2.)Regard being had to the similitude of controversy in both the appeals they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. Be it noted, the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, by two separate judgments and orders passed on 16.8.2013 in Appeals Nos. 7 of 2013 and 8 of 2013 has set aside the judgment and order dated 1.10.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in Arbitration Petition (L) Nos. 1239 of 2012 and 1240 of 2012 respectively as a consequence of which two interim awards passed by the learned Arbitrator on 26.7.2012 in respect of two contracts between the same parties rejecting the counter claim of the respondent-herein have been annulled. For the sake of clarity and convenience we shall state the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30015 of 2013, for the Division Bench has observed that the Appeal No. 7 of 2013 had emanated from the disputes which arose in respect of civil construction agreement dated 2.2.2001 and in Appeal No. 8 of 2013 the disputes related to agreement dated 8.1.2003 for air-conditioning of the two buildings to be constructed for the appellant therein and no separate submissions were advanced before it and the position was the same before the learned single Judge.
(3.)The expose' of facts are that the appellant and respondent entered into a civil construction contract for construction of two buildings known as Rolta Bhawan II (RB-II) and Rolta Bhawan III (RB-II) and also for modification of building Rolta Bhawan I(RB-I) previously constructed by the respondent. As certain disputes arose, on 3.12.2004 the respondent terminated the contract. After certain correspondences between the parties pertaining to the termination of the contract the appellant by letter dated 29.3.2006 invoked the arbitration clause in respect of its claims against the respondent. As the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, it filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") before the High Court of Bombay for appointment of arbitrator and the designated Judge vide order dated 19.11.2010 appointed the sole arbitrator.
(2.)Regard being had to the similitude of controversy in both the appeals they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. Be it noted, the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, by two separate judgments and orders passed on 16.8.2013 in Appeals Nos. 7 of 2013 and 8 of 2013 has set aside the judgment and order dated 1.10.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in Arbitration Petition (L) Nos. 1239 of 2012 and 1240 of 2012 respectively as a consequence of which two interim awards passed by the learned Arbitrator on 26.7.2012 in respect of two contracts between the same parties rejecting the counter claim of the respondent-herein have been annulled. For the sake of clarity and convenience we shall state the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30015 of 2013, for the Division Bench has observed that the Appeal No. 7 of 2013 had emanated from the disputes which arose in respect of civil construction agreement dated 2.2.2001 and in Appeal No. 8 of 2013 the disputes related to agreement dated 8.1.2003 for air-conditioning of the two buildings to be constructed for the appellant therein and no separate submissions were advanced before it and the position was the same before the learned single Judge.
(3.)The expose' of facts are that the appellant and respondent entered into a civil construction contract for construction of two buildings known as Rolta Bhawan II (RB-II) and Rolta Bhawan III (RB-II) and also for modification of building Rolta Bhawan I(RB-I) previously constructed by the respondent. As certain disputes arose, on 3.12.2004 the respondent terminated the contract. After certain correspondences between the parties pertaining to the termination of the contract the appellant by letter dated 29.3.2006 invoked the arbitration clause in respect of its claims against the respondent. As the respondent failed to appoint an arbitrator, it filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") before the High Court of Bombay for appointment of arbitrator and the designated Judge vide order dated 19.11.2010 appointed the sole arbitrator.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.