Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : May-22-1972
Reported in : AIR1972HP137
R.S. Pathak, C.J. 1. This is an appeal purporting to be under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act read with Clause 10 of the Letters Patent and also S. 10 of the Delhi High Court Act.2. In 1960, the appellant and the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 entered into an agreement with the Himachal Pradesh. Government to take on lease certain forests. The agreement provided for arbitration in the event of a dispute or difference between the parties. A dispute did arise, and it was referred to an Arbitrator, Shri H. S. Pathania. Both the parties appeared before the Arbitrator and participated in the arbitration proceedings. On December 20, 1970, the Arbitrator made an award in favour of the lessees. It seems that on December 22. 1970 the Arbitrator personally appeared before the High Court and filed his award. On the same date, copies of the award were given to the lessees aswell as to counsel for the Union of India, who was representing the interests of the Himachal Pradesh Government.3. On January 8, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-25-1972
Reported in : AIR1973HP1
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of our brother Chet Ram Thakur granting an Interim injunction during the pendency of an application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act.2. The respondent. M/s. H. S. Sobti and Co., had entered into a contract with the appellants, for the construction of a Girls Hostel for tbe Medical College at Simla. The respondent could not complete the work within the stipulated period as, according to him. the progress of the work was impeded. The raspondent complained that money lawfully due to him was being withheld by the appellants and tlie security of Rs. 20,000/-furnished by him hod also been forfeited. He also complained that the contract had been rescinded by tbe appellants. Accordingly, he applied under Section 20 of the Indian. Arbitration Act in this Court. While the application under Section 20 was pending, the respondent also applied for an interim Injunction under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 read with Sections 141 ...
Tag this Judgment!