Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to Arbitration Petition No.34 of 2004 filed by Narmada Cement Company Ltd. against Sunfield Resources Pvt. Ltd. The parties agreed that the facts and law involved were identical to those in Arbitration Petition No.35 of 2004. The court, by a brief order, dismissed the petition for the same reasons as in the companion matter and directed the petitioner to pay costs to the respondent. No detailed analysis or reasoning is provided in the text.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Dismissal of Petition - Similar Facts and Law - The petition was dismissed as the facts and law were identical to those in Arbitration Petition No.35 of 2004, which was also dismissed. The court directed the petitioner to pay costs to the respondent. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the arbitration petition should be allowed on grounds similar to those in Arbitration Petition No.35 of 2004
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Petitioner directed to pay costs of the petition to the respondent, as incurred by the respondent.
Law Points
- Arbitration petition dismissed on merits
- costs awarded
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (06) 41
Arbitration Petition No.34 of 2004
Mr. Pradip Sancheti with Mr. B.B. Saraf and S. Chandozana i/b M.K. Ambalal & Co. for the Petitioner; Mr. S.K. Mukherjee with Mr. A.M. Vernekar for the Respondent
Narmada Cement Company Ltd.
Sunfield Resources Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Arbitration petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to challenge an arbitral award or other relief
Filing Reason
Dispute between parties leading to arbitration
Previous Decisions
Arbitration Petition No.35 of 2004 was dismissed on similar facts and law
Issues
Whether the petition should be allowed on grounds similar to those in Arbitration Petition No.35 of 2004
Submissions/Arguments
Counsel for both sides agreed that facts and law are identical to Arbitration Petition No.35 of 2004
Ratio Decidendi
The petition fails for the same reasons as in Arbitration Petition No.35 of 2004, and costs are awarded to the respondent.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Counsel appearing for both sides are unanimous that the facts and law involved in Arbitration Petition No.35 of 2004 and similar to the facts and law involved in this Petition and therefore for the reasons disclosed in my judgment in Arbitration Petition No.35 of 2004 this petition also fails and is dismissed.
Procedural History
The petition was filed in 2004. On 30th June 2005, the court dismissed it, noting similarity with Arbitration Petition No.35 of 2004.
