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

1990 Supreme(Del) 209

D.P.WADHWA
UTTAM SINGH DUGGAL AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.K.WATEL, Reva Khetrapal, S.L.VATEL

D. P. Wadhwa, J.

( 1 ) IN this suit for declaration and injunction by this order I am to decide two applications. The first application is of the plaintiff and is under Order 39, Rules I and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure and the second is under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and has been filed by the defendant. Both the parties have filed their respective replies to these applications. I will record at tile outset that filing of reply to the application of the plaintiff by the defendants was without prejudice to the rights of the defendants under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. ft was so recorded in an earlier order.

( 2 ) AS the name suggests the plaintiff is a public limited company. The defendants are five in number. Second defendant is the Delhi Administration through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Delhi Administration and the other three defendants are respectively the Chief Engineer, the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer in charge of Yamuna Bridge Project, New Delhi.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF was awarded a contract by the first defendant for construction of a multilane Western approach of the bridge across river Yamuna opposite





















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