Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)Section 20 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
M/S. Northern India Iron & Steel Co Etc. A vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 10 November, 1975
In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Northern India Iron & Steel Co. and others Vs. State of Haryana; and the decision of this Court in M/s. Hari Steel & General Industries Vs. M.C.D. Suit No. 3557A/1990 delivered on 8th July, 1991.
Matsaya Metal Udyog (P) Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (Desu) on 27 February, 1991
In M/s. Matsya Metal Udyog Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi; disposed of on 30.1.1995 in Suit No. 3289/1992, this Court held that the billing demand has been defined to mean the highest of (i) the connected load (ii) the maximum demand (iii) the contact demand or as per load in the test report.
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Metal Forgings Pvt. Ltd. vs M.C.D. & Anr. on 23 October, 1998
The aforesaid decision in M/s. Hari Steel & General Industries (supra) was also relied upon in the case of M/s. Metal Forgings Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In my considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case in hand also, the petitioner has not given any data and details from which the said disputes could be said to have arisen. It is not stated on which date and during which period the electricity supplied was less than 11000 KVA and how much was the deficiency so as to find out whether there was in fact any such deficient supply and if so, whether it was within the limit of permitted variation or not. It also appears from the impugned bill that rebate for load shedding has been granted to the petitioner. Thus, the disputes as raised by the petitioner do not amount to raising any dispute which could be referred for arbitration.
Ram Lal Aggarwal & Co. vs M.C.D. on 1 March, 1998
22. In my considered opinion, the respondent has been able to establish that the impugned bill is direct and inevitable result of the meter readings and the application of the terms of the tariff thereto. Thus, the reasonableness of the rates as per tariff or the formula provided for computation in the tariff which is statutory in nature cannot be the subject matter for reference as per the arbitration agreement. The aforesaid dispute also is accordingly not referable to arbitration. The petitioner has also sought for reference of dispute 'E' to the arbitrator. The aforesaid dispute also in the light of the observations of the decision in Ram Lal Aggarwal & Co. (supra) cannot be referred to for arbitration.
1