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

1990 Supreme(Del) 322

MAHINDER NARAIN
HARI OM PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
B. DUTTA – Respondent


Mahinder Narain

( 1 ) THIS is a petition u/s. 20 of the Arbitration Act for filing an agreement containing an arbitration clause between the parties. It is to be found in a collaboration agreement dt. 21. 11. 1988.

( 2 ) THE effect of entertaining this petition u/s. 20 of the Arbitration Act, would be to have an arbitrator specifically perform a collaboration agreement which is in connection with construction of a multi-storcyed building on plot No. C-C/15, Kalkaji, New Delhi, the said plot being about 1145 sq. yds.

( 3 ) IN my judgment reported as 1990 (3) D. L. 325 E1990. Raj. LR. 454] Sulochna Uppal vs. Surtnder Sheet, I have taken the view that it is only the courts that can decree specific performance of contracts, in view of the principles laid down by the Privy Council, and the Supreme Court, referred to and relied upon in that judgment, namely, that when a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner, or not at fill. All other methods are forbidden. Under the Specific Relief Act. only Courts can grant specific performance in accordance with that Act, arbitrator cannot. An award by an arbitrator appointed under Arbitration Act, ca



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