AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 249 wordsD.N. Patel, J. - This arbitration application has been preferred for appointment of an Arbitrator, in pursuance of Clause 20 of an agreement entered into between the parties which is at Annexure-1, for which, a notice was also given for appointment of the Arbitrator, which is at Annexure-5 dated 11th June, 2014, which was denied by the respondents vide letter dated 10th July, 2014, which is at Annexure-7 to the memo of this arbitration application.
Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this applicant was awarded several work orders and so far as work order no. 43/918 is concerned, it was a work assigned to this applicant for Rs. 20 Lakhs and, thereafter, dispute has arisen along with other work order also and ultimately an application was preferred for appointment of an Arbitrator, previously. Earlier, Arbitration Application No. 36 of 2007 was preferred by the very same applicant which was dismissed by Hon''ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 20th August, 2008.
The said order was challenged by way of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 30643 of 2008, which was also dismissed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 23rd November, 2011.
Thus, it appears that previously also, the prayer for appointment of the Arbitrator was rejected by this Court. Thus, on the basis of principle of res judicata, this arbitration application is not tenable at law. Hence, this arbitration application is, hereby, dismissed.
