Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.60 seconds)

Sri Venkateswara Engineering ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., By Its ... on 6 October, 1993

If the Engineer fails to give notice of his decision in writing within a period of thirty days after being requested, or if the contractor is dissatisfied with the notice of decision of the Engineer, the Contractor may within thirty days after receiving the notice of decision appeal to the Employer who shall afford an opportunity to the contractor to be heard and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The Employer shall give notice of his decision within a period of thirty days after the contractor has given the said evidence in support of his appeal. subject to arbitration, as hereinafter provided, such decision of the Employer in respect of every matter so referred shall be final and binding upon the contractor and shall forthwith be given effect to by the contractor, who shall proceed with the execution of the works with all due diligence whether he requires arbitration, as hereinafter provided, or not. If the employer has given written notice of his decision to the Contractor and no claim to arbitration has been communicated to him by the contractor within a period of thirty days from receipt of such notice, the said decision shall remain final and binding upon the contractor. If the employer shall fail to give notice or his decision, as aforesaid, within a period of thirty days after being requested as aforesaid, or if the contractor be dissatisfied with any such decision, then and in any such case the contractor within thirty days after the expiration of the first-named period of thirty days, as the case may be, require that the matter or matters in dispute be referred to arbitration as hereinafter provided.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Karnataka Housing Board And Others vs M/S. Vaijanath Tubewells Ltd. Gulbarga on 21 July, 1994

21. Sri B. Gopal Hegde, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that the arbitration agreement need not be actually filed in Court. Even the absence of a prayer for a direction to file arbitration agreement in the application under Section 20 of the Act would not vitiate the proceedings, if the Court considers all aspects and makes an order to refer the dispute to arbitration. Directing to file an arbitration agreement is incidental to the proceeding under Section 20 of the Act. He sought to derive support for his submission from the decision of the Supreme Court in Everest Co-owners v. M. P. State Warehousing Corporation, . The said decision is not applicable to this case as the facts are clearly distinguishable. In the aforesaid case, the agreement was not disputed. The relevant part in the aforesaid case makes it very clear that the principle laid down therein cannot be extended to this case. The relevant part reads as under (at p. 843 of AIR):
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1