SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(SC) 478

ARUN KUMAR, M.B.SHAH
Delhi Transport Corporation LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Rose Advertising – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.-The main question for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to "the old Act") would apply in the facts and circumstances of the case or the case will have to be dealt with under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act").

2. Briefly the facts as gathered from the impugned judgment of the High Court are that the parties had entered into an agreement on 15.1.1993 regarding display of advertisements on the body of DTC buses. DTC is the Delhi Transport Corporation which runs the public road transport for commuters in the city and outskirts of Delhi. The agreement was for a period of 3 years commencing from 15.1.1993 upto 14.1.1996. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. Dispute and differences arose between the parties. A request was made by the contractor on 9.1.1995 for appointment of arbitrator to settle the disputes that had arisen between the parties. This was followed by another letter dated 26th November, 1995 containing similar request. On 16th January, 1996 the contractor filed in Court a petition under Section 20 of the old Arbitration Act. The n








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top