Pursuant to the direction of the Constitution Bench companytained in its judgment1 dated 9 9 1994, the bail petition was posted before us on 21 9 1994.
14140 47 of 1991.
OF DELHI v. ASIAN ART PRINTERS P LTD.
We heard Shri Kapil Sibal, learned companynsel for the petitioner and Shri Natarajan, learned companynsel for the respondent fully.
It is the said enhancement which was questioned by the furnace holders in writ petitions filed in Delhi High Court.
For the sake of companyvenience, we would refer to the facts in civil appeal arising out of SLP C Nos.
The petition is accordingly rejected.
Jeevan Reddy, J. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.
We are number inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this juncture.
The appeal Is directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant, Municipal Corporation of Delhi DESU as well as the cross objections preferred by the respondent.
The appeal and cross objections were preferred against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated 21 11 1990 allowing the petition and a large number of similar petitions filed by the respondent and other companysumers under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and referring the dispute between the parties to arbitration.
