Skip to content


ircon International Limited Vs. Central Coalfields Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Kolkata High Court

Decided On

Judge

Appellant

ircon International Limited

Respondent

Central Coalfields Ltd.

Excerpt:


.....said to be arbitrable. accordingly, the suit was maintainable. the defendant for all these years did not object to the continuation of the suit and it was only when the suit was being heard as an undefended suit, the defendant appeared and tried to stall the proceedings. the defendant has fairly realised that the matter requires an expeditious disposal. the parties have consented to the matter being resolved in terms of section 89 of the code of civil procedure. the suggestion was thought to be fair and on that basis, the court has passed this order. the defendant at this stage cannot be allowed to take inconsistent stand. the arbitrator has already entered appearance. i do not find any reason to recall my order. the application stands dismissed. urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (soumen sen, j.) kc.

Judgment:


GA No.2242 of 2014 CS No.402 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction IRCo.INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Versus CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date : 11th August, 2014.

Appearance: Mr.Pradip Kr.

Dutta, Adv.Mr.Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.Mr.Partha Basu, Adv.Mr.Nikhil Kumar, Adv.Mr.Raghu Nath Ghose, Adv.Ms.Arunima Maitra, Adv.The Court : This is an application for review of an order passed by this Court.

This application is the second attempt by the defendant to have the order dated 16th May, 2014 recalled.

Earlier, an application was made for recalling of the order dated 16th May, 2014 which was dismissed.

under the garb of review.

present.

The present application has been filed The conditions for reviewing the order are not The grounds mentioned are no grounds on which the Court can review an order.

Moreover, Clause 13 of the agreement between the parties is not an arbitration clause and the dispute cannot be said to be arbitrable.

Accordingly, the suit was maintainable.

The defendant for all these years did not object to the continuation of the suit and it was only when the suit was being heard as an undefended suit, the defendant appeared and tried to stall the proceedings.

The defendant has fairly realised that the matter requires an expeditious disposal.

The parties have consented to the matter being resolved in terms of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The suggestion was thought to be fair and on that basis, the Court has passed this order.

The defendant at this stage cannot be allowed to take inconsistent stand.

The arbitrator has already entered appearance.

I do not find any reason to recall my order.

The application stands dismissed.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(SOUMEN SEN, J.) kc.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //