M/S. S.R. CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. M/S. JAYANTI FILMS INDIA PVT. LTD.
LAWS(P&H)-2014-5-510
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on May 29,2014

M/S. S.R. Constructions Appellant
VERSUS
M/S. Jayanti Films India Pvt. Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a sole proprietorship concern, is stated to be engaged in the business of interior and civil constructions. The petitioner claims that tenders were invited for interior and exterior works for the project of the respondent i.e. Gurgaon Dreamz through an NIT which in turn contained an Arbitration Clause 20.2.1 giving right to both the parties to appoint their respective Arbitrators and they in turn would elect the third Arbitrator. The petitioner submitted a final bid on 11.11.2008 which was accepted by the letter of award dated 13.11.2008.
(2.) THE work is stated to have been carried out over a longer period of time on account of defaults and breaches on part of the respondent. There are stated to have been short payments of several RA bills and since the dispute regarding payments could not be resolved, a notice for arbitration was sent on 8.6.2012 by the petitioner. The respondent by its response dated 27.8.2012 requested the petitioner to come forward to resolve the issue but despite subsequent meetings nothing happened. The petitioner vide their letter dated 5.1.2013, thus, proposed their nominee Arbitrator to which there is stated to be no response from the respondent which resulted in the petitioner filing a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the said Act") before the Delhi High Court being Arbitration Petition No. 150 of 2013. The respondent objected to the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and on 1.8.2013, after some arguments, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law which was granted. It is stated that even thereafter endeavours for settlement were made in August, 2013, but to no avail which has given rise to filing of the present petition.
(3.) THE petition is resisted by the respondent. The narrow compass of the controversy within which the respective stands have to be appreciated is set out hereinafter.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.