Search Results Page

Search Results

21 - 30 of 455 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974

Kaikkara Construction Company vs State Of Kerala And Others on 11 March, 2022

7. The short point to be decided in this case is whether Ext P7 demand notice is bad because it is a unilateral decision from the Government when the same is disputed by the petitioner and whether any independent adjudication about the alleged loss W.P(C) No.31363 of 2009 & W.P(C) No.4856 of 2019 15 sustained to the Government is necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. It is an admitted fact that Ext P7 is an order passed without hearing the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is mainly based on the decisions of the Apex Court which deprecate unilateral decision to assess the damages sustained by one party to a contract when there is a dispute about the liability from other parties. In such a situation, the parties should obtain a decree from a civil court or should resolve the issue through arbitration or third party intervention is the observation of the Apex Court. The counsel for the petitioner relied on a series of decisions of the Apex Court to strengthen his contention. The first decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is Raman Iron Foundry's case (supra) and all the subsequent decisions are based on that decision.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - P V Kunhikrishnan - 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

Som Datt Builders-Ncc-Nec (Jv) vs National Highways Authhority Of India on 29 March, 2017

(v) Reliance is placed on the decision in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry (1974) 2 SCC 231 to urge that the expression 'sums O.M.P. 146/2009 & O.M.P. 298/2009 Page 5 of 19 due' would be the sum arrived at after statutory deductions. It is submitted that the majority of the AT which gave the Award (challenged by the Contractor in OMP No.146/2009) was contrary to the contractual provisions. It was contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited vs Pradeep Kumar Sravanam Rp East Godavary ... on 12 June, 2023

In this connection the Liquidator relied on decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231 : AIR 1974 SC 1265. It is true that damages for breach of contract is not a debt unless determined by civil court or Arbitrator. In this case, there is no decree in favour of the applicant determining the damages by civil court or award by Arbitrator determining damages. So this issue cannot be resolved by the Liquidator. The applicant has not so far obtained decree or award against the Corporate Debtor, with regard to damages suffered on account of failure to perform the contract.''
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rna Exotica Flat Purrchasers ... vs Skyline Construction Company And 4 Ors on 21 February, 2024

23 Reading of the aforesaid, and the reliance upon Raman Iron Foundry (Supra), it is clarified that the construction of the term 'claim' to mean a right to payment or right to remedy for a breach of contract, a debt is construed to be a liability or Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2024 01:17:19 ::: 22/33 IA 2877-23format.doc obligation in respect of a right to payment, even if it arises out of breach of contract, notwithstanding that there is no adjudication of the breach, followed by a judgment, decree or order and it is clarified that the expression payment is elastic enough to include 'recompense' and include 're-payment'.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - B Dangre - Full Document

M/S Bansal Infra Projects Pvt vs M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. ...... Opp. ... on 20 August, 2024

In the light of foregoing discussion, we hold that the appellants have made out a prima facie case in their favour for grant of injunction against the respondents so also they have made out a case of balance of convenience and irreparable loss in their favour as was held by this Court in Raman Iron Foundry case [Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231] . They are, therefore, entitled to claim injunction against the respondent in relation to encashment of Bank Guarantee No. 12/2006 dated 4-8-2006."
Orissa High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oil & Natural Gas Commission, Mumbai vs Macqreqor-Navire Port Equipment, ... on 26 September, 2001

The second part of the contention in respect of interest is that no interest would be payable and if at all payable, it could only be after decision of the dispute by appropriate forum. What in fact is being contended is that damages are not a debt. It becomes a debt only after it is ascertained and, therefore, when determined. Power to award interest, therefore, would be after it becomes a debt. If that be the case no interest either for pre-reference or pendente life could have been awarded. It is no doubt true that the law as settled in this country is that interest will be payable on the debt as ascertained. If authority is required reference need be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Roman Iron Foundry (supra) wherein the Apex Court observed that the claim for damages for breach of contract is not a claim for sum presently due and payable. In the same judgment the Apex Court has also noted that the claim for liquidated damages stands on the same footing as a claim for unliquidated damages. The Court observed that the claim for unliquidated damages does not give rise to a debt until the liability is adjudicated and damages assessed by a decree or order of a Court or other adjudicatory authority. Therefore, when there is a breach of contract the party who commits the breach does not eo instanti incur any pecuniary obligations, nor does the party complaining of the breach becomes entitled to a debt due from the other party. The following observations thereafter need to be reproduced as it represents the law as declared by the Apex Court on the issue:--
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 4 - F I Rebello - Full Document
Previous   1 2 3   4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next