VALMIKI J.MEHTA
MITTAL ESTATES PRIVATE LTD. – Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent
1. This objection petition has been filed by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the DDA) under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act,1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) raising various objections to the award dated 20.11.1996 of the Arbitrator. I am proceeding with the judgment in as much as the counsel for the DDA had argued yesterday and today and neither yesterday nor today the counsel for the non-objector is available. Accordingly, I have no option but to decide the case on merits in as much as Mr. Honey Taneja, Advocate, appearing as the counsel for the non-objector says that he is not in a position to argue the matter.
2. Though DDA has raised many objections and many claims running into approximately around 40 in number, however, since except the claims which are discussed below most of the objections pertained to factual issues and therefore were not and could not be seriously pressed by the counsel for the objector.
3. That leaves us with claim Nos.1(e) and (f), claim No.2.1, claim No.3.4, claim No.3.11, claim No.3.17, claim No.4.1, claim No.4.4, claim No.5, claim No.6 and claim No.7.
4. Claim Nos. 1(e) and 1(f) were the c
Dwarika Dass v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1999 (3) SCC 500.
G. Ramachandra Reddy and Co. v. Union of India and Anr. 2009 (6) SCC 414
Krishna Bhagya Jat Nigam v. G. Harish Chand 2007 (2) SCC 720
McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2006 (11) SCC 181
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. v. Indag Rubber Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 700
Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.