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

2018 Supreme(P&H) 2489

KRISHNA MURARI
Dharam Pal Maddar – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Dheeraj Mahajan, Adv., Nitin Kumar, Adv.

JUDGMENT

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. This is an application made by the applicant-petitioner under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for appointment of an arbitrator.

2. In pursuance to a tender notice issued by the respondent-railways for improvement of flooring of second class waiting hall at Amritsar and repair of badly damaged flooring of platform No.2 at Beas Railway Station in the section of SSE/ML/ASR under ADEN/ASR, the bid offered by the applicant-petitioner was accepted and it was awarded contract vide letter dated 26.06.2012 with the estimate cost of work Rs. 3,66,672/-. An agreement dated 06.08.2012 was duly entered into between the parties. Under the terms of the contract the stipulated date of commencement of the work was 21.06.2012 and the stipulated date of completion was 21.10.2012. According to the petitioner-applicant, although the date of commencement of the work was 21.06.2012 but the acceptance letter was prepared on 26.06.2012 and dispatched on 03.07.2012 which was received by the applicant-petitioner on 05.07.2012.

3. It is also submitted that with a malafide intention, a condition was imposed in the acc
















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