Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.48 seconds)Ram Lal Jagan Nath vs Punjab State Through Collector And Anr. on 4 March, 1966
18. Referring to these judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rattan Lal Jagan Nath Vs. Punjab State (supra) and the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Dewan Chand Vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir, (supra) the Supreme Court in The State of U.P. Vs. Tipper Chand (supra) held that the courts had correctly interpreted the clauses as amounting to arbitration agreement. The court held that the use of the words "any dispute between the contractor and the Department" were significant and were rightly interpreted as arbitration agreement.
Section 34 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Anr. vs O.P. Singhal & Co. on 23 February, 1984
10. The judgment aforesaid, in my view, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The court in State of Haryana & Another Vs. O.P.Singhal & Co., (supra) did not hold that by acceptance of tender no binding contract comes into being between the parties. All that has been held by the court is that as the contract was not entered into in terms of Article 299 of the Constitution of India its acceptance by an officer who was not authorised to act under Article 299 could not be made binding between the parties.
State Of U.P. vs Tipper Chand on 22 February, 1980
18. Referring to these judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rattan Lal Jagan Nath Vs. Punjab State (supra) and the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in Dewan Chand Vs. The State of Jammu and Kashmir, (supra) the Supreme Court in The State of U.P. Vs. Tipper Chand (supra) held that the courts had correctly interpreted the clauses as amounting to arbitration agreement. The court held that the use of the words "any dispute between the contractor and the Department" were significant and were rightly interpreted as arbitration agreement.
Rajdhani Paper House vs R.K. Jain Sales And Anr. on 29 November, 1985
12. The other contention raised by the plaintiff is that the said clause is not an arbitration agreement between the parties. For this he relies upon the judgment reported as Rajdhani Paper House Vs. R.K. Jain Sales and Another, .
The Arbitration Act, 1940
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
1