Ms. Shanti Devi And Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority And Ors. on 14 December, 2006
In the case of Madhok Constructions (supra) in somewhat similar circumstances and while relying to the same clause, the Court held as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.39 seconds)M/S N N Buildcon Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 24 April, 2018
9. Challenging the aforesaid findings, vide objections under Section 34
of the Act, the appellant had relied upon judgment of this Court in Madhok
Construction Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1998) 71 DLT 599 and
Shanti Devi & Ors. vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors., 2007 (1) Arb
LR 82.
N N Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 14 March, 2018
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
award is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the arbitrator has
completely misinterpreted the provisions of clause 13 of the
agreement. He submits that clause 13 of the agreement has
application only in situations where the work is restricted and the
same is not to be carried out at all at a later date through another
agency. For this proposition, he relies upon the judgments of this
Court in Madhok Construction Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India 1998
(1) RAJ 239 (Delhi) and Ms.Shanti Devi & Ors. vs. Delhi
Development Authority & Ors. 2007 (2) R.A.J. 195 (Del). He
submits that in the present case admittedly the work in question had
been awarded in favour of another agency by the respondent on 17 th
October, 2016. Therefore, there was no abandonment of work as
contemplated in clause 13 of the agreement and consequently, the
petitioner was entitled to its claim for damages for the premature
foreclosure of the work.
1