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

DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATEEK JALAN
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Delhi State Consumer Co-operative Federation Ltd. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. These 24 petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the Union of India [hereinafter, "the Union"] in respect of identical orders dated 19.02.2021 passed by a sole Arbitrator in 24 different arbitration proceedings. The Union has, in the alternative, sought a direction upon the Arbitrator to consider the applications filed by it for recall of the impugned orders.

2. All the proceedings were filed by the Union against the respondent-Delhi State Consumers Co-operative Federation Limited [hereinafter, "DSCCFL"]. By the impugned orders, the Arbitrator has terminated the proceedings under Section 25(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, "the Act"].

A. Facts

3. The 24 arbitral proceedings arise in substantially similar circumstances. In response to four different tender enquiries floated by the Union, DSCCFL offered to supply various qualities of pulses [dal] for the use of defence personnel. According to the Union, DSCCFL failed to furnish the requisite security deposit, as a result of which each of the contracts were cancelled at the risk and cost of the respondent. The Union sought to claim consequential damage

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