Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. on 29 July, 1971

New Media Broadcasting (Pvt.) Ltd. And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) Thr. Secretary, ... on 24 December, 2007

16. Mr. Sibal submitted that there was no concluded agreement between the parties. In the absence of a concluded contract, there was no question of enforcement of the concluded contract and as such the writ petition was maintainable. He places reliance on Bhim Sain v. Union of India reported at , Mahabir Auto Stores and Ors. v. Indian Oil Corporation and Ors. reported at , Union of India v. Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported at , Radha Krishna Aggarwal v. State of Bihar reported at . He submitted that before a concluded contract was entered into, the writ petition was maintainable challenging the executive authority of the Government in imposing conditions. He submitted that petitioner was also entitled to seek refund under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Courts have held that the respondent could not withhold money without authority of law.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - M Sarin - Full Document

Home Bank Investment Inc And Anr. vs M.M.T.C. Limited And Anr. on 19 December, 2007

19. The learned Counsel for the respondent had placed reliance on several decisions. Firstly, he referred to Union of India v. Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. (Pvt) Ltd. for the proposition that an acceptance must be absolute before it could be said that a contract has come into being. This decision was referred to in the context of exchange of three letters dated 20.12.1996, 30.12.1996 and 18.01.1997. According to the learned Counsel, the letter dated 18.01.1997 was a letter whereunder the arbitrator was appointed because the respondent was acting under the contract in respect of the disputes under the contract. On the other hand, he submits that the petitioners had appointed their arbitrator de hors the contract. Therefore, there was no acceptance of the petitioners' offer in absolute terms and consequently there was no arbitration agreement.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Network Limited vs Raj Oil Mills Ltd on 7 February, 2014

21. The consensus ad-idem that the law requires must be on the material terms of the contract. When a party agrees to the material terms of the contract, that contract comes into existence. Where the condition inserted is immaterial or unnecessary and does not affect the material terms of the contract, and the offeree also accepts the contract as originally made, then it would be simply unjust to allow the offeree to contend that there is no contract at all or to insist on 9 UP State Electricity Board v Goel Electric Stores, AIR 1977 All 494 10 Chhotey Lal Gupta v Union of India, AIR 1987 All 329; Union of India v Uttam Singh Dugal & Co, AIR 1972 Del 110; Badri Prasad v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 706 11 UP Rajakiya Nirman Nigam Ltd v Indure Pvt Ltd, (1996) 2 SCC 667. This was a decision in the context of an arbitration agreement.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - Full Document

A.K.Sinha vs Manager-Airport Authority Of India on 20 February, 2014

19. In Union of India v. Uttam Singh Dugal and Co., AIR  1972  Delhi  110 the  Delhi  High  Court  has also  taken  the  view   that   acceptance   must   be   absolute   In   this   case   also  Utam Singh Duqal and Co., AIR 1972 Delhi 110 the Delhi  High Court contract between the parties. In our case also it  is   pertinent   to   note   that   the   tender   remained   open   for  acceptance for a period of 90 days, i.e. up to 9th Oct., 1966  and it is within this period of 90 days that under the afore  mention contract between the parties. In our case also it is  pertinent   to   note   that   the   tender   remained   open   for  acceptance for a period of 90 days, i.e. upto 9th Oct., 1966  and   it   is,   within   this   period   of   90   days   that   under   the  aforementioned two letters dated 26th Sept., 1966 and 7th  Oct., 1966 certain new conditions were sought to be added.  As the plaintiff did not agree to the new conditions under  the law no concluded contract came into existence.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Sapna Tuteja & Anr. vs L&T; Finance Ltd. on 12 January, 2015

5. In the reply to the petition under Section 34 of the Act, the respondents has raised the preliminary objection that the present petition is barred by limitation. It is submitted that the award was passed on 22.06.2011 and the petition has been filed on 15.01.2014, almost after 3½ years and thus liable to be dismissed. It is contended that vide IA No.1787/2014, the petitioner has sought the condonation of delay of 11 days, while the delay of is of 1245. It is submitted that in Union of India vs. Popular Construction OMP No.112/2014 Page 3 of 13 2001(8) SCC 470, the Court has clearly held that the time limit prescribed under Section 34 of the Act to challenge the award is absolute and that cannot be extended under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and this view was affirmed by this Court in Union of India vs. Uttam Singh Duggal 198 (2013) DLT 62A(CN). It is further submitted that the notice of execution petition was served upon the petitioners on 03.09.2013 and affidavit of service was also filed in this regard. The petitioners have falsely stated the date of service of notice of execution petition as 17.09.2013, 21.09.2013 and 03.10.2013. It is further submitted that the petitioners had due knowledge of the arbitral proceedings and of passing of the award. The Arbitrator had duly sent the copy of the award by registered post to the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners had given their address in the agreement as 324, West Vardhman Plaza, Near Peera Ghari National Market, New Delhi and all the notices were served at this address by registered post. It is submitted that the Arbitrator vide its communication dated 16.03.2011 accepted the reference of dispute and issued notice for 20.04.2011 with further directions and the said communication was sent vide registered post on 18.03.2011 and the acknowledgement card received back. The respondents filed the statement of claim and sent the copy to the petitioners OMP No.112/2014 Page 4 of 13 on 25.03.2011 by post. Despite that, the petitioners failed to enter appearance and the Arbitrator had fixed the matter for 17.06.2011. The said communication was sent to the petitioners on 20.05.2011, which was duly received by the petitioners and the acknowledgment cards have been duly received back. It is submitted that under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the petitioners are deemed to have been served since the communication has been sent at the address provided by them. It is submitted that in these circumstances, the Arbitrator had proceeded ex parte against the petitioners. It is father contended that the award dated 22.06.2011 was dispatched to both the petitioners by registered post on 21.7.2011, which was duly received by the petitioners and the acknowledgment cards have been received back. It is submitted that the award was duly served upon the petitioners and the petitioners have taken a false plea that they became aware of the passing of the award only on filing of the execution petition by the respondent. It is submitted that the petition being barred by limitation, provided under Section 34(3), is liable to be dismissed.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - D Sharma - Full Document

Gmr Kishangarh Udaipur Ahmedabad ... vs National Highway Authority Of India on 29 June, 2015

15. The petitioner has prayed that it has invoked the Arbitration Clause and during the pendency of the Arbitration, the subject-matter of the dispute need to be preserved and no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon AIR 2006 Delhi 98 D.S. Construction Ltd. Vs. Rites Ltd and Anr.; Union of India Vs. Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. (P) Ltd, AIR 1972 Delhi 110 to O.M.P No. 1234/2012 Page 15 of 34 contend, there is no concluded Contract as there is a failure to fulfill the Conditions Precedent and the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the Performance Bank Guarantee and the invocation would be fraudulent and illegal; 2006 (1) Arbitration Law Reporter 321 Delhi Continental Construction Ltd and Anr Vs. Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam to contend that the injunction against invocation of Bank Guarantee must be granted where there is a fraud or special equities or where non-grant of an injunction would lead to irretrievable injustice to the party seeking injunction; JG Engineers (P) Ltd Vs. Union of India 2011 5 SCC 758, 1987 (2) SCC 160 State of Karnataka Vs. Shri Rameshwara Rice Mills to contend that the respondent, as a Contracting Party cannot decide the issue by itself or a party to the Agreement cannot be an Arbiter in its own cause.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Chhotey Lal Gupta (Deceased By L.Rs.) vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 9 September, 1986

In Union of India v. Uttam Singh Dugal and Co., AIR 1972 Delhi 110 the Delhi High Court has also taken the view that acceptance must be absolute In this case also Utam Singh Duqal and Co., AIR 1972 Delhi 110 the Delhi High Court contract between the parties. In our case also it is pertinent to note that the tender remained open for acceptance for a period of 90 days, i.e. up to 9th Oct., 1966 and it is within this period of 90 days that under the afore mention contract between the parties. In our case also it is pertinent to note that the thender remained open for aceptance for a period of 90 days, i.e. upto 9th Oct., 1966 and it is, within this period of 90 days that under the aforementioned two letters dated 26th Sept., 1966 and 7th Oct., 1966 certain new conditions were sought to be added. As the plaintiff did not agree to the new conditions under the law no concluded contract came into existence.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 Next