MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF DELHI vs J.P. SAINI — C.A. No. 2972/2007

Case under Section XIV-A. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010033202007

Filing Date

31-Jan-2007

Registration No

C.A. No. 2972/2007

Diary Number

3320/2007

Order Date

08-Dec-2011

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XIV-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF DELHI

    Adv. PRAVEEN SWARUP

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.J.P. SAINI

    Adv. JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Dec-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 07-Dec-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 11-Oct-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 27-Sep-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 08-Sep-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 07-Sep-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 01-Sep-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 24-Aug-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 24-Aug-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 18-Aug-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 15-May-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 11-Feb-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 29-Jan-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 29-Jan-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 22-Jan-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 22-Jan-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 22-Jan-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 12-Nov-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 09-Jul-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 09-May-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 25-Apr-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 02-Apr-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 12-Feb-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  25. 31-Jan-2007

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 2972/2007

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of C.A. No. 2972/2007 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. J.P. Saini) The Supreme Court dismissed MCD's appeal on December 8, 2011, rejecting its claim that the contractor's signature on final bills constituted valid "intimation" under Clause 25 of the contract requiring arbitration demands within 90 days. The Court held that Clause 25 requires strict construction and explicit notice, not mere knowledge; moreover, the final bills lacked dates of contractor signatures, preventing the 90-day period from commencing. No costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case