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

2001 Supreme(Del) 122

DEVENDER GUPTA, MUKUL MUDGAL
ROSE ADVERTISING – Appellant
Versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
RAVI GUPTA, S.K.Luthra

DEVINDER GUPTA

( 1 ) WHETHER the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act No. 10 of 1940) or the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No. 1 of 1996) would apply to enforce the award of the arbitrator is in this appeal.

( 2 ) RELEVANT facts are that on 15. 1. 1993 an agreement was entered into between the parties for display of advertisements on the body of D. T. C. Buses. Validity period of the agreement was from 15. 1. 1993 to 14. 1. 1996. Dispute appears to have arisen during continuance of the agreement. A request was made by the appellant on 9. 1. 1995 to settle the disputes or to get those settled by appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the agreement. No action appears to have been taken on such a request made by the appellant. Another letter dated 26. 11. 1995 was sent, inter alia, asking the respondent to either settle the disputes or to appoint an arbitrator in terms of arbitration clause. Since the request of the appellant was again not acceded to, on 16. 1. 1996 a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed by the appellant. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent and an interim order was also passed. Counsel for the respondent appeared on 19
















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