Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.49 seconds)State Of U.P. & Ors vs Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd on 20 August, 1996
In view of the aforesaid discussions and also the law laid down by the Apex Court as well as in view of the Division Bench decision of this court, I am of the view that since the disputed question of fact is involved in the present writ petition and the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus challenging the notices issued by the Railway authority as well as order rescinding the contract and also recovery for an amount in terms of the contract agreement between the parties, the present writ petition is not maintainable, more so, when the parties by entering into an agreement have agreed to settle their dispute by way of arbitration.
State Of Bihar And Ors vs Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. And ... on 4 September, 2003
reported in (1987) 2 SCC 160, Canara Bank and Ors. v. Debasis Das and Ors. , State of Bihar and Ors. v. Industrial Corporation (P) Ltd. and Ors. and Creative Entrepreneurs and Anr. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2004 (3) Recent Arbitration Judgment 649 (Delhi).
Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974
In any case, the learned Counsel submits that as the notice dated 4.3.98 and the order of recession of contract dated 17.3.98 are bad in law, the subsequent action of recovery of any amount on account of the risk and the cost settlement also bad in law. Mr. Hussain, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that though the petitioner has also challenged the notice inviting tender dated 21.5.98 for settlement of the work allotted to the petitioner at his risk and cost, he is not pressing the said prayer challenging the said NIT as the work has already been allotted and completed by other agency. The learned Counsel has further submitted that as the petitioner's contract was rescind without notice and the amount is sought to be recovered from him without making any assessment by an independent authority with notice to the petitioner, the writ petition is maintainable. The learned Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundary , The State of Karnataka etc. v. Shri Rameshwara Rice Mills Thirthahalli etc.
Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003
In our considered opinion, ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India and Ors. (supra) in no manner supports the contention of the respondent-writ petitioners that in contractual matters remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is always available even if the contract itself provides a mode for settlement of dispute arising from out of the contract.
Canara Bank And Ors vs Shri Debasis Das And Ors on 12 March, 2003
reported in (1987) 2 SCC 160, Canara Bank and Ors. v. Debasis Das and Ors. , State of Bihar and Ors. v. Industrial Corporation (P) Ltd. and Ors. and Creative Entrepreneurs and Anr. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2004 (3) Recent Arbitration Judgment 649 (Delhi).
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Creative Entrepreneurs vs Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. on 25 August, 2004
reported in (1987) 2 SCC 160, Canara Bank and Ors. v. Debasis Das and Ors. , State of Bihar and Ors. v. Industrial Corporation (P) Ltd. and Ors. and Creative Entrepreneurs and Anr. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Anr. reported in 2004 (3) Recent Arbitration Judgment 649 (Delhi).
1