Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The SC held that the second respondent, appointed by M/s Pratibha Industries Limited to perform electrical work on a hospital construction project for the appellant, was not a party to the arbitration agreement. Direct payment by the appellant to the second respondent did not make the latter a beneficiary under the contract containing the arbitration clause. The High Court erred in its determination. The SC ordered that any amounts deposited by the second respondent toward arbitration costs with the Delhi International Arbitration Centre should be refunded upon proof of payment being furnished. The application was disposed of accordingly.
The SC held that the second respondent, appointed by M/s Pratibha Industries Limited to perform electrical work on a hospital construction project for the appellant, was not a party to the arbitration agreement. Direct payment by the appellant to the second respondent did not make the latter a beneficiary under the contract containing the arbitration clause. The High Court erred in its determination. The SC ordered that any amounts deposited by the second respondent toward arbitration costs with the Delhi International Arbitration Centre should be refunded upon proof of payment being furnished. The application was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
