Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

M/S Sanee Ingrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs. M.P. Rural Road Development Authority

M/S Sanee Ingrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs M.P. Rural Road Development Authority

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jun 25, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1041659

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Arbitration

Key legal issue
Arbitration

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M/S Sanee Ingrastructure Pvt. Ltd

Advocate Shri. Abhijeet A. Awasthi

Respondent

M.P. Rural Road Development Authority

Excerpt

.....of the petitioner seems to be that the condonation of delay in the light of the observation made by this court on 9.12.2011 in the proceedings under section 11 of the arbitration and conciliation act has not been granted by the arbitration tribunal, therefore, prayer made is to issue certain direction in this regard. having heard learned counsels for the applicant and the non-applicant, i am of the considered view the while exercising jurisdiction in a proceeding under section 11 of the arbitration and conciliation act, this court has no jurisdiction to issue any direction to the arbitration tribunal, it can be done only in a proper proceedings but not in the proceedings under section 11 of the arbitration and conciliation act. keeping in view the aforesaid, no case is made out for review/ recall of the order passed. accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to proceed in the matter in accordance with law by resorting to the remedy, if any available, under the arbitration and conciliation act or by filing a petition under section 226/ 227 of the constitution, this petition is disposed of. with the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge nd

Full Judgment

R.P.No.508/2012 25/06/2012 Shri Anuj Puri, learned counsel with Shri Abhijeet A.

Awasthi, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Vipin Mishra, learned counsel for the Non- applicants.

Seeking review/ recall of an order passed by this Court on 9.12.2011 in Arbitration Case No.5/2011, this application is filed.

While disposing the application filed by the applicant under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 on 9.12.2011, this Court had made an observation while granting liberty to the applicant to approach the Arbitral Tribunal to the effect that the question of limitation shall be considered by the tribunal keeping in view the pendency of proceedings before this Court and the uncertain legal position with regard to jurisdiction at that point of time.

Grievance of the petitioner seems to be that the condonation of delay in the light of the observation made by this Court on 9.12.2011 in the proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has not been granted by the Arbitration Tribunal, therefore, prayer made is to issue certain direction in this regard.

Having heard learned counsels for the applicant and the non-applicant, I am of the considered view the while exercising jurisdiction in a proceeding under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, this Court has no jurisdiction to issue any direction to the Arbitration Tribunal, it can be done only in a proper proceedings but not in the proceedings under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, no case is made out for review/ recall of the order passed.

Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to proceed in the matter in accordance with law by resorting to the remedy, if any available, under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act or by filing a petition under Section 226/ 227 of the Constitution, this petition is disposed of.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.

Certified Copy as per rules.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge nd

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial