Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.20 seconds)

Meditab Specialities Ltd vs Ashoka Buildcon Limited on 22 September, 2022

4. The learned counsel for the Respondents has opposed the application. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Union of India represented by the Chief Engineer Vs. M/s. Tenzing Construction 1, the decision of the Allahabad High Court in National Authority of India through Project Director Vs. Ram Niranjan & Ors.2, the decision of the Madras High Court in Dr. M. Kumaresan Vs. The Arbitrator / District Collector & Ors.3 and lastly, the decision of the Delhi High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rudraksh Laminates Private Limited4. It is submitted that the Applicants have not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - C V Bhadang - Full Document

Meditab Specialities Ltd vs Ashoka Buildcon Limited on 22 September, 2022

4. The learned counsel for the Respondents has opposed the application. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Union of India represented by the Chief Engineer Vs. M/s. Tenzing Construction 1, the decision of the Allahabad High Court in National Authority of India through Project Director Vs. Ram Niranjan & Ors.2, the decision of the Madras High Court in Dr. M. Kumaresan Vs. The Arbitrator / District Collector & Ors.3 and lastly, the decision of the Delhi High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rudraksh Laminates Private Limited4. It is submitted that the Applicants have not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - C V Bhadang - Full Document

Cipla Limited vs Ashoka Buildcon Limited on 22 September, 2022

4. The learned counsel for the Respondents has opposed the application. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Union of India represented by the Chief Engineer Vs. M/s. Tenzing Construction 1, the decision of the Allahabad High Court in National Authority of India through Project Director Vs. Ram Niranjan & Ors.2, the decision of the Madras High Court in Dr. M. Kumaresan Vs. The Arbitrator / District Collector & Ors.3 and lastly, the decision of the Delhi High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rudraksh Laminates Private Limited4. It is submitted that the Applicants have not shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - C V Bhadang - Full Document
1