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

2009 Supreme(Del) 1174

MANMOHAN
PRAGATI MGFR. AND SUPPLIERS – Appellant
Versus
U. O. I. – Respondent


Advocates appeared
Mr. Shiv Khorana, Advocate
Mr. Rajat Gaur, Advocate

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J (ORAL)

I.A. 7606/1995 Present application has been filed by the Union of India seeking condonation of delay in filing objections to the Award. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing objections is condoned. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. I.A. 7605/1995

1. Present application has been filed by the Union of India under Section 30 of Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1940”) challenging the impugned Award dated 31st May, 1994 to the extent it rejected Union of India’s counter-claim towards risk purchase loss.

2. It is pertinent to mention that by virtue of the said Award, learned Arbitrator had also directed refund of security deposit and payment of balance amount under the contract dated 18th March, 1988 executed between the parties. However, the decision to refund the security amount as well as to make balance payment have not been challenged in the present application.

3. Mr. Rajat Gaur, learned counsel for applicant-Union of India submitted that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself by exceeding his jurisdiction by not taking into account the term of the contract which permitted the UOI to issue a risk pu



















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