Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Sup Engi vs Consulting Engineering Services ... on 10 July, 2019

Author: Arindam Sinha

Bench: Arindam Sinha

OD-12
                             AP 878 of 2017
                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                             ORIGINAL SIDE


GOVT. OF WEST BENGAL IRRIGATION & WATERWAYS DIRECTORATE,
                         SUP ENGI
                          VERSUS
     CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.


  BEFORE:

  The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

  Date : 10th July, 2019.
                                                                   Appearance:
                                                    Mr.Kishore Datta, Sr. Adv & AG
                                                        Mr.Subhabrata Datta, Adv.
                                                                 Mr.P. Sinha, Adv.
                                                         Mr.Debashis Sarkar, Adv.
                                                                    ..for petitioner.

                                                              Mr.S.N.Mitra,Sr. Adv.
                                                           Mr.Sayantan Bose, Adv.
                                                           Mr.Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
                                                                  ..for respondent.

The Court : Mr.Datta, learned senior advocate, Advocate General, resumes his submissions. He reiterates his reliance on Associate Builders (supra). He draws attention to paragraphs 17, 27 and 28. Laying special emphasis on paragraph 28, in which is extracted earlier judgment of said Court in ONGC Limited versus Western Geco International Ltd. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 263, he submits, there was lack of judicial approach. The arbitrator allowed subsequent disclosures to be made by claimant. Corresponding leave was not granted to his client. There was violation of provision in section 18 of the 2 Act. The award does not contain reasons and therefore is violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of the Act. It is also perverse.

He then relies on two more decisions of Supreme Court. Firstly, in Mcdermott International INC. versus Burn Standard Co. Ltd. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 181, to paragraphs 100 and 102 and submits, quantification on claim on damages is a matter of proof. Satisfaction on proof was not obtained. He reiterates his earlier relied on judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Damodar Valley Corporation versus Central Concrete & Allied Products Ltd., paragraphs 6 and 16. The second judgment is in Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore versus S.Mani reported in (2005) 5 SCC 100, paragraph 19 for submission that pleadings are not substitute for proof.

Mr.Datta wants to make a brief concluding submission on law, on adjourned date. List on 17th July, 2019.

(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) D.Ghosh