COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT versus MESSRS PAVITAL/PIVATO JOINT VENTURE
Section 3, &, & 30 and Q 33 of the Contempt of Law (of 1984 of 10), Article 114 was arbitrarily selected and appointed by the trial court petitioner in keeping with the arbitration proceedings and Thereafter the action was taken. Subsequently there was a request to revoke the powers of the arbitrators and set aside the arbitration proceedings. The applicant's moderate conduct did not permit him to withdraw from his contractual commitments and obligations. The trial court correctly applied the principle of estoppel in rejecting the petition filed by the applicant. In its ruling, it was remarked that one of the arbitrators, belonging to the superior judiciary, would not harm the legal utility of the order, the High Court refused to interfere with the trial court's order because the court non- Was not legally prosecuted.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
