This document summarizes proceedings from an arbitration hearing between M/s Taxmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd. and NHPC Ltd. The claimant filed an application for the production of original claims submitted to the respondent and related notes. The respondent's lawyer requested a short adjournment to either file the documents or respond why they cannot be produced. The tribunal also removed any reference to proceedings before the Adjudicator from the respondent's statement of defense, as the contract specifies the Adjudicator's proceedings cannot be part of the defense. The hearing was adjourned to August 30th for arguments on the claimant's application and to frame issues. The parties were directed to pay further arbitration fees before the next date.
This document summarizes proceedings from an arbitration hearing between M/s Taxmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd. and NHPC Ltd. The claimant filed an application for the production of original claims submitted to the respondent and related notes. The respondent's lawyer requested a short adjournment to either file the documents or respond why they cannot be produced. The tribunal also removed any reference to proceedings before the Adjudicator from the respondent's statement of defense, as the contract specifies the Adjudicator's proceedings cannot be part of the defense. The hearing was adjourned to August 30th for arguments on the claimant's application and to frame issues. The parties were directed to pay further arbitration fees before the next date.
This document summarizes proceedings from an arbitration hearing between M/s Taxmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd. and NHPC Ltd. The claimant filed an application for the production of original claims submitted to the respondent and related notes. The respondent's lawyer requested a short adjournment to either file the documents or respond why they cannot be produced. The tribunal also removed any reference to proceedings before the Adjudicator from the respondent's statement of defense, as the contract specifies the Adjudicator's proceedings cannot be part of the defense. The hearing was adjourned to August 30th for arguments on the claimant's application and to frame issues. The parties were directed to pay further arbitration fees before the next date.
MR. WSTICE A.P.CHOWDHUR1 (RETD.), ARBRRATOR MR.P.UMASHANKAR, ARBITRATOR In the arbitration matter between :- M/s Taxmaco Rail & Engineering Ltd. . . . . . ..Claimant And N.H.P.C. Ltd. ...... Respondent z* PROCEEDING DATED: 21.07.2014 AT 2.30 P.M. PRESENT:- Mr. Manjeet Narwan along with Mr. S.K.Mahajan, Mr. Singhvi and Mr. Sanjiv Prakash for the Claimant. Mr. Puneet Taneja, Advocate along with Mr. Satyam Jha for the Respondent. Claimant has filed an application for production of original of the claims submitted by claimant to the respondent as well as note sheets vide which the Project ~ut hor i t y had forwarded claims of the claimant to its Higher Authorify at Faridabad. Law OfEicer of the Project Mr. Ajit Kumar says that either these documents would be filed or else he will file a reply as to why these documents are not to be produced. For which purpose he seeks a short adjournment. Claimant as well as respondent have filed admission and denial of each other's documents. Claimant pointed out that in the Statement of Defence respondent have mentioned about proceedings before the Adjudicator and also the order passed by said Adjudicator. As per clause 6.2.2 of the Contract, Adjudicator's proceedings and order cannot form the part of respondent's defence. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal is of the view that order or reference to the proceedings before the Adjudicator mentioned in the Statement of Defence stand expunged. Now to come up for arguments on the application filed by the claimant as well as for fra'ming of issues on 30.08.2014 at 4.30 P.M. The venue for the next meeting will be Niti Bagh to be arranged by the claimant/respondent. I Fee already paid by the parties stands exhausted as on the 3rd Proceeding i.e. today. Therefore, parties are directed to pay further fee of 3 hearings before the next date of hearing to each of $e Arbitrators mentioning the amount deducted on account of TDS. " " ,. - 7 P.UMASHANKAR JUSTICE A.P.CHOWDUR1 JUST-M ARBITRATOR ARBITRATOR khi x PRESIDING ARBITRATOR NEW DELHI DATED: 21.07.3014
Electronic Record or Computer Output-cannot Be Led in Evidence Unless Certificate, As Required by Section 65-B of Evidence Act is Filed-No Distinction of 'Primary' or 'Secondary' Evidence for Requirement of the c