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

2006 Supreme(MP) 198

K.K.LAHOTI, MANJUSHA P.NAMJOSHI
Ram Niwas Shukla – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
V.R.Rao, VIVEK AVASTHY,

Judgment

( 1. ) A short controversy involved in this revision is that whether a reference application filed before the Tribunal beyond the period of 18 months from the date of referring dispute to the Final Authority under the contract, but within one year of the decision of Final Authority is barred by limitation under Section 7-B of M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as The Act, 1983 ).

( 2. ) THE facts in short are that the applicant is a contractor. A contract was awarded to the applicant for the construction of 48 family quarters at Rewa. The aforesaid work could not be completed within the stipulated time. The applicant referred the dispute to the Chief Engineer who was Final Authority under the agreement dated 1-9-1982. The Chief Engineer did not take any decision for a period of near about 1 1/2 years to decide the dispute and on 4-5-1994 rejected it. The applicant preferred a reference petition before the Arbitration Tribunal on 24-5-1994, within a period of 20 days from the date of decision of the Chief Engineer. Along with the application, applicant filed an application seeking condonation of delay under Section 17-A of the Act, 1983. The













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