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

1988 Supreme(SC) 124

M.P.THAKKAR, N.D.OJHA
Bakhtawar Singh Bal Kishan – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Advocates:
C.V.SUBBA RAO, D.N.DEVEDI, O.P.Grover, P.N.Kumar, R.P.Srivastava, RISHI KESH

JUDGMENT:- The appellant is a contractor who entered into a construction contract with the M.E.S. (Military Engineering Services) for making some additional construction in the ordnance factory at Muradnagar in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The contract was entered into at Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh. A dispute arose in regard to the execution of the contract between the contractor and the respondent, Union of India. An Arbitrator was appointed who in due course rendered an award in favour of the contractor. The contractor instead of instituting an appropriate proceeding in Uttar Pradesh where the contract was executed and the work was carried out, instituted a proceeding on the original side of the Delhi High Court. By this proceeding the contractor prayed for making the award a rule of the Court under Ss. 14 and 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The respondent raised a plea to the effect that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction inasmuch as the cause of action had arisen at a place in Uttar Pradesh and that the contract was also executed at Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh. The learned single Judge negatived this plea. The respondent Union of India preferred a letters patent appea
















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