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

1998 Supreme(Del) 781

MOHD.SHAMIM
HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent


( 1 ) AN award dated 17/1/1994 rendered by Shri Dandage, sole arbitrator was filed before the Court.

( 2 ) ON the filing of the said award notices were issued to both the parties vide order dated 12/8/1996. The petitioner filed objections against the said award ( vide I. A. No. 11143/96) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. The respondent did not prefer any objections against the said award despite service of notice on them. However, they filed a reply to the objections preferred by the petitioner.

( 3 ) IT has been urged for and on behalf of the objector that there is an error apparent on the face of the award inasmuch as the award has not been rendered on merits. The learned arbitrator fell into a grave error by coming to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner was barred by time. The claimant failed to invoke the arbitration clause within a period of 90 days of the preparation of the final bill as per the conditions of the contract. The learned arbitrator over-looked and ignored the letter dated 7/5/1984 written by the petitioner Ex. C5 wherein the disputes were raised by the petitioner giving rise to the present claim within 90 days of the payment of the fin













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