Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.42 seconds)
Akshaya Jain vs Airports Authority Of India on 10 August, 2000 cites

S.K. Gupta vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors. on 31 January, 2000

28. Thus there is no reason of any kind given to explain the delay of almost a year in appointing an arbitrator. In fact as per the letter of the petitioner dated 5th July, 1999 the respondent was reminded about the unpaid bills one of which was pending since 28th December, 1995. The facts of this case fall within the scope of the callous neglect referred by the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge in S.K. Gupta Vs. DDA's case (Supra) in considering the question of delay. In view of the facts of the present case it is not possible to accept the stand of the respondent that it had not been recalcitrant in appointing an arbitrator. In fact the recalcitrance of the respondent is accentuated by the fact that while both parties are based in Delhi, an arbitrator from Bombay has been appointed in respect of a structure constructed at Bamrauli, Allahabad. This itself would have occasioned avoidable inconvenience and unnecessary expenditure to both the parties. However, the counsel for the respondent very fairly did not support the appointment of a Bombay based arbitrator.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - M Sarin - Full Document

Subhash Projects And Marketing Ltd. vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited on 15 May, 1998

27. I would adopt and indeed am bound by the view taken by the aforesaid judgments of this Court relied upon by the petitioner and the Bombay High Court in Larsen & Toubro's Case(Supra) in preference to the view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court expressed in Ashok Coal Depot's case(Supra) and Subhash Projects & Marketing Ltd.'s case (Supra).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - D M Dharmadhikari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next