Search Results Page

Search Results

11 - 20 of 455 (3.02 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974

Lanco Infratech Ltd. vs Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. on 23 September, 2016

15.6 As noticed in Intertoll ICS Cecons v. National Highways Authority of India (supra), while the decision in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry (supra) was overruled subsequently in H. M. Kamaluddin Ansari & Co. v. Union of India (1983) 4 SCC 417 on the point that the clause in the contract applied to the claim itself and not only to an amount due, the decision in Arb. A. (Comm.) 30 of 2016 Page 14 of 24 Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry (supra) is still good law as regards the nature of the claim for damages.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 13 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply vs M/S. Chennai Water Desalination Ltd

13. Though the judgment in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, was partially overruled in H.M.Kamaluddin Ansari and Co. Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 1983 (4) SCC 417, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in H.M.Kamaluddin Ansari and Co. Vs. Union of India and others, had upheld the portion of the judgment that a claim for damages does not automatically translate into a debt or liability.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Alag Impex Pvt Ltd vs Manjeet Singh on 6 November, 2025

24. Ld. counsel for the accused argued that the complainant has not proved any outstanding legal liability as there is no consideration in the transaction. Ld. counsel for the accused further submitted that the claim for unliquidated damages cannot be considered to be a debt as held in Union of India Vs. Raman Iron Foundry 1974 (2) SCC 231. Learned Counsel for the Complainant highlighted on the memorandum of settlement Ex CW1/2 and submitted that the accused has admitted his signatures on Ex CW1/2 as per which the cheques in question were duly issued.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Suman Infrastructure Private ... vs Public Works Department on 9 October, 2020

After considering the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry and State of Karnataka v. Rameshwar Rice Mills Thirthahalli (supra), we have no doubt in our mind that Clause 4.3.38.1 does not confer any power on the State Government or its officers to recover any amount that is disputed by the contractor as payable under the contract to the State Government prior to the decision of the S.E. or of the Tribunal under the Adhiniyam.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Wework India Management Private ... vs M/S. Kga Investments on 22 December, 2023

In the case of Gangotri Enterprises Ltd (supra) the Apex Court noted the decisions in Raman Iron Foundary (supra) and Iron and Hardware (India) Co., (supra) which held that the Court must decide that the defendant is liable and then proceed to assess what that liability is and that a claim for damages for breach of contract is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable.
Bombay High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - S U Deshmukh - Full Document

New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs Anand Sonbhadra on 17 May, 2022

69. It is precisely to do away with judgments such as Raman Iron Foundry [Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231] that “claim” is defined to mean a right to payment or a right to remedy for breach of contract whether or not such right is reduced to judgment. What is clear, therefore, is that a debt is a liability or obligation in respect of a right to payment, even if it arises out of breach of contract, which is due from any person, notwithstanding that there is no adjudication of the said breach, followed by a judgment or decree or order. The expression “payment” is again an expression which is elastic enough to include “recompense”, and includes repayment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 97 - Cited by 5 - K Joseph - Full Document
Previous   1 2   3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next