Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S. Haware Engineers & Builders P.Ltd vs Munira Begum Mohd.Yusuf Mukri on 20 April, 2017
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice, D.Y. Chandrachud, Sanjay Kishan Kaul
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.386-387 OF 2008
M/S. HAWARE ENGINEERS & BUILDERS
PRIVATE LIMITED ...APPELLANT(S)
Vs.
MUNIRA BEGUM MOHD.YUSUF MUKRI ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. The only contention advanced before us, by the learned counsel for the appellant was, that while passing the impugned order dated 21.7.2006, the High Court referred to a contractual agreement dated 20.5.2002. It is submitted, that the rightful contractual agreement, which needed to have been mentioned is dated 25.4.2003.
2. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the impugned order dated 21.7.2006, wrongly refers to the arbitral clause, as clause 38 and/or clause 70, whereas, the rightful arbitral clause in the contractual agreement dated 25.4.2003, is clause 22.
3. Likewise, it was the contention of the learned Signature Not Verified counsel for the appellant, that the impugned order dated Digitally signed by SARITA PUROHIT Date: 2017.04.25 17:16:55 IST Reason: 1 21.7.2006 refers to the claim amount as Rs.3,32,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand only), whereas, the actual dispute is in respect of a claim for specific performance.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent very fairly states, that the mistakes pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, are genuine.
5. In view of the above, the instant civil appeals are disposed of by directing, that the impugned order referring to the contractual agreement dated 20.5.2002, be read as – dated 25.4.2003. Likewise, the arbitral clause referred to as clause 38 and/or clause 70, be read as - clause 22, and finally the claim amount depicted as Rs.3,32,000/- be read as - a claim for specific performance.
6. We are also of the view, that since the arbitrator appointed by the High Court had terminated the arbitral proceedings, it would be just and proper for us to appoint another arbitrator to dispose of the claim raised by the appellant. We therefore, appoint Justice (Retired) J.N. Patel, the former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, as the arbitrator.
7. The Registry of this Court is directed to furnish a copy of this order, to the above arbitrator, who may enter upon arbitration by determining his own fee, naturally, 2 after following the procedure contemplated under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
......................CJI.
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR] ......................J. [Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD] ......................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] New Delhi;
20th April, 2017.
3
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.1 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s).386-387/2008 M/S. HAWARE ENGINEERS & BUILDERS P.LTD Appellant(s) VERSUS MUNIRA BEGUM MOHD.YUSUF MUKRI Respondent(s) (With office report) Date : 20/04/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL For Appellant(s) Mr. Gaurav Banerjee,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Amit Gupta,Adv.
Ms. Manisha Singh,Adv.
Ms. Mansi Kukreja,Adv.
For M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co.,Advs.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shrish Kumar Misra,Adv.
Mr. P.S. Bajpai,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The civil appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Sarita Purohit) (Renuka Sadana) Court Master Assistant Registrar (Signed order is placed on the file) 4