H.P. Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

.....of the husband. a petition seeking protection of minor child was thereupon filed by father of the husband before delhi high court. a direction for handing over custody of child to father of husband was also sought. the high court considering fact that the u.k. court was already in seisin of matter and had passed an interim order and by relying on principle of comity of nations and comity of judgments of the courts of two different countries in deciding the matter directed the wife to take the child of her own to u.k.or hand it over to father of husband to be taken to u.k. as measure of interim custody and that it would be for the u.k. court to decide the question of custody - order was challenged by wife - held, the order of high court was not liable to be interfered with. although, on first impression, it would appear that the interests of the minor child would best be served if she is allowed to remain with the wife, the order of u.k. court cannot be lost sight of., the order of u.k. court except for insisiting that the minor be returned to its jurisdiction, the english court did not intend to separate the child from the mother until a final decision was taken with regard to the custody of the child. the ultimate decision in that regard has to be left to the english court having regard to the nationality of the child and the fact that both the parents had worked for gain in the u.k. and had also acquired permanent resident status in the u.k. english court has not directed that the custody of the child should be handed over to the father but that the child should be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts in the u.k. which would then proceed to determine as to who would be best suited to have the custody of the child. the high court has taken into consideration both the questions relating to the comity of courts as well as the interest of the minor child, which, no doubt, is one of the most important considerations in matters relating to custody of..........group-ii at narela by respondent no. 2 vide agreement dated 27th september, 1990.5. clause 25 of the agreement provided for resolution of disputes and differences between the parties by way of arbitration. the work was completed to the entire satisfaction of the respondents on 6th july, 1993 but subsequently disputes and differences arose between the parties when the petitioner sent a list of his claims vide letter no. 156 dated 18th november, 1997 to the respondent no. 2 for ayment thereof. the final bill for the work was released in favor of the petitioner on 9th september, 1997.6. the failure of the respondents to file the reply to the application inspire of large number of opportunities shows that there is no dispute as to the invocation of the arbitration clauses by the petitioner after receipt of the final bill on 9th september, 1997. 7. it is settled law that once a party is conferred with the power to appoint the arbitrator failed to respond to the request of the aggrieved party to appoint the arbitrator it ceases to have an authority to appoint the arbitrator after the aggrieved party approaches the court for appointment of the arbitrator. 8. the indifferent and cavalier approach of the respondent to the instant proceedings not only supports the averments of the petitioner with regard to the invocation of the arbitration clause but also justifies the appointment of an independent arbitrator by the court. 9. section 16 of the arbitration act confers vastjurisdiction upon the arbitral tribunal. the arbitral tribunal has been empowered to rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections withrespect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. it has also powers to adjudicate upon the plea that it is exceeding the scope of its authority. 10. the aforesaid facts persuade me to allow theapplication.11. mr. s.b. lall, a retired chief engineer (arbitration) of government of india, department of telecommunication (tel. 6899291) r/o.....