Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.26 seconds)
Documents citing Anant Raj Agencies vs Delhi Development Authority on 26 July, 2000

Wee Aar Constructive Builders vs Delhi Development Authority And Anr. on 14 March, 2001

11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner controverter all these submissions. According to him, the nomenclature of item No.3.7 is important; it simply did not include straightening and cutting of the steel bars. According to him, Clause 42(ix) of the contract was inapplicable since his client was concerned with cold twisted bars which do not find a mention in Clause 42(ix) of the contract. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered in Suit No.1985-A of 1984 (K.C.Chhibar v. Delhi Development Authority) decided on 18th January, 1991 and Suit No.570-A of 1995 and Suit No.656-A of 1995 (Anant Raj Agencies v. Delhi Development Authority) decided on 30th October, 1998 to contend that identical claims had been accepted by two learned Single Judges of this Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 19 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Ashok Malhotra vs Syndicate Bank And Ors. on 18 December, 2002

9. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent relies upon the decisions in Anant Raj Agencies v. Delhi Development Authority, 86 (2000) Delhi Law Times 834; Mrs. Naimat Kaur v. Decon Company, 82 (1999) Delhi Law Times 389; New Bank of India v. Marvels (India), 93 (2001) Delhi Law Times 558, in support of his contentions. But, these are the cases where the applicants were found to be negligent in defending their case, or that their non-action and want of bona fide were apparent.
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Wee Aar Constructive Builder vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr. on 23 April, 2001

22. It is pertinent to mention here that a contrary view was taken by this very Court in Anant Raj Agencies Vs. DDA in S.570-A/95 and 656/95 and in K.C.Chhiber Vs. DDA in S. 1985-A/84 which was to the effect that the process of straightening and cutting could not have bene included in the item pertaining to 'reinforcement of RCC work including bending, binding and placing in position complete'. However without going into the correctness of the aforesaid two decisions the instant case being distinctive from this case inasmuch as the petitioner duly notified and informed the DDA that the charges for straightening and cutting of the steel would be extra and the DDA did not raise any objection, the award in this respect needs to be affirmed.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - J D Kapoor - Full Document

B.M. Labroo vs Vibhoo Kumar And Ors. on 14 August, 2001

7. It was not subject matter of controversy before the court tat an award can only be set aside in facts of the present case in case the court comes to the conclusion that he arbitrator has misconducted himself. The word misconduct necessarily is pregnant with meaning. It would be difficult to define what amounts to misconduct. The facts of each case necessarily have to be taken note of. The expression by itself is of wide import. Word misconduct does not necessarily imply anything in the nature of fraud involving moral turpitude. It must cover wider and longer meaning. If known principles of law are ignored and proceedings mishandled it must be taken to be misconduct. Same view was expressed by this court in the case of Anant Raj Agencies vs. Delhi Development Authority 1996 (37) DRJ (DB) 561. It was noted:
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1