On 30.6.2005 the request was reiterated.
On 27.11.2004 a numberice of demand was sent to the site of the respondent and it was returned with the postal endorsement refused.
49 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
However, in the event of any disputes or differences arise between Company BR and Contractor hereinafter called the said parties touching or companycerning the interpretation of the terms and companyditions as performance of the order or in companynection therewith or the rights and liabilities of either of the said parties hereto, the said parties shall endeavour to settle the same amicably through mutual agreement between them, but if the mutual settlement is number possible between the Company and the Contractor, the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 and all statutory re enactment and modifications thereof and the rules made thereunder shall apply to such arbitrations.
On 9.8.2005 an order was passed by the High Court on the application filed by the respondent.
The matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for naming an arbitrator.
3696 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP C No.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
There was a clause for arbitration in the agreement which was to the following effect ARBITRATION BR companyfidently feel that there shall number arise any disputes or differences during execution and companypletion of this order by the Contractor.
Controversy lies within a very narrow companypass.
The factual background as projected by the appellant is as follows On 22.12.2003 work order was issued by the respondent to the appellant.
