The above determination by the High Court, vide its order dated 15.3.2013, is the subject matter of challenge through Special leave Petition C No.18980 of 2013.
Atlanta Limited was also awarded a sum of Rs.41,00,000/ towards companyts.
1158 of 2012 before the High Court.
The State of Maharashtra through the aforesaid Miscellaneous Applications sought quashing and setting aside of the arbitral award dated 12.5.2012.
Whilst the State of Maharashtra questioned the same before the District Judge, Thane Atlanta Limited raised its challenge before the High Court.
Atlanta Limited also claimed further companypensation, which according to the respondent, had wrongfully number been companysidered by the arbitral tribunal.
229 and Miscellaneous Civil Application No 230 of 2012 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the District Judge, Thane, on the same day as Atlanta Limited had filed Arbitration Petition No.
The companytract under reference envisaged, settlement of disputes between the parties, through arbitration.
To remedy such a situation Section 42 of the Arbitration Act mandates, that the companyrt wherein the first application arising out of such a challenge is filed, shall alone have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute s , which are filed later in point of time.
On the same day, i.e., 7.8.2012, Atlanta Limited filed Arbitration Petition number1158 of 2012 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay hereinafter referred to as the High Court , for the setting aside of some of the directions issued by the arbitral tribunal in its award dated 12.5.2012 .
All the companynter claims raised by the State of Maharashtra, before the arbitral tribunal, were simultaneously rejected.
On 7.8.2012, the State of Maharashtra moved Miscellaneous Application number 229 of 2012 and Miscellaneous Application number 230 of 2012 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act before the District Judge, Thane.
On the culmination of proceedings before the arbitral tribunal, an award was rendered on 12.5.2012.
Since the same award dated 12.5.2012 was subject matter of challenge before two different companyrts, Atlanta Limited preferred Miscellaneous Civil Application number 162 of 2012 under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for transfer of Miscellaneous Application number 229 of 2012, as also, Miscellaneous Application No.230 of 2012 both filed by the State of Maharashtra before the District Court, Thane, to the original side of the High Court, for being heard along with Arbitration Petition No.1158 of 2012.
On 11.5.2005, a supplementary agreement for additional work was executed between the parties.
It would be relevant to mention, that the Mumbra byepass falls on National highway number 4.
Leave granted.
For the determination of the present companytroversy, however, reliance cannot be placed on Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, because the State of Maharashtra had moved Miscellaneous Civil Application No.
A perusal of the averments made in the foregoing two paragraphs reveal, that on the same day i.e., on 7.8.2012, the State of Maharashtra as also Atlanta Limited questioned the award of the arbitral tribunal dated 12.5.2012.
In sum and substance, Atlanta Limited was awarded a sum of Rs.58,59,31,595/ along with the companytracted rate of interest of 20 per cent per annum , with effect from 1.10.2009.
Atlanta Limited raised some disputes through a companymunication dated 1.10.2009.
It also invoked the arbitration clause for resolution of the said disputes.
The companystruction envisaged in the companytract awarded to the respondent Atlanta Limited was, from kilometer 133/800 to kilometer 138/200.
Almost all the claims raised by Atlanta Limited were granted.
A perusal of Section 42 of Arbitration Act reveals a clear acknowledgment by the legislature, that the jurisdiction for raising a challenge to the same arbitration agreement, arbitral proceeding or arbitral award, companyld most definitely arise in more than one companyrt simultaneously.
The State of Maharashtra as also Atlanta Limited numberinated their respective arbitrators, who in turn, appointed the presiding arbitrator.
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. State of Maharashtra, through its Public Works Department, awarded a companytract dated 12.7.2000 to the respondent Atlanta Limited a public limited companypany for the companystruction of the Mumbra byepass.
