Search Results Page

Search Results

71 - 80 of 455 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974

Union Of India vs Ramkishore Sahu on 18 February, 2026

In Raman Iron Foundry [Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231, para 11] , the question was whether a claim for unliquidated damages does not give rise to "a debt" till the liability is determined. It was held that no debt arises from a claim for unliquidated damages until the liability is adjudicated. Even from this judgment it is not possible to hold that the liability for compensation, in the present context, arises only on determination thereof and not on the date of accident.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Marina World Shipping Corporation Ltd. vs Jindal Exports (P) Limited on 16 December, 2003

In the light of the aforesaid ratio of the decision laid down by the Supreme Court in (Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundary , supra,) and in the context of the provisions of Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, it would be appropriate to consider as to whether or not it could be said that in terms of the foreign award, the sum is ascertained and due and payable immediately by the respondent to the petitioner. In order to appreciate the aforesaid issues, the provisions of Sections 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act shall have to be taken notice of. Section 44 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act finds place in Part II of the said Act. Section 44 of the said Act defines the words 'foreign award' which mean an arbitral award given on differences between the persons, arising out of a legal relationship considered as commercial under the law in force in India and made on or after 11 October, 1960, in pursuance of an agreement in writing for arbitration to which the Convention set forth in the First Schedule applies. The aforesaid section resembles the definition of foreign award under Section 2 of the Foreign Award Recognition and Enforcement Act, 1961. One of the requirements of the foreign award in the aforesaid section is that the award should have been made in pursuance of an agreement in writing, for arbitration to which the Convention set forth in the Schedule applies. Clause (2) of Article-II of the First Schedule as mentioned in Section 44 of the Act provides that the term 'agreement in writing' shall include an arbitration clause in a contract or an arbitration agreement signed by the parties or contained in exchange of letters or telegrams.
Delhi High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 5 - M Sharma - Full Document

Smt. Sharda Mahajan vs Maple Leaf Trading International (P) ... on 26 March, 2007

48. As noticed above Section 434(1) incorporates a deeming provision for the purpose of Section 433(e). Section 434(1) has three separate clauses. The decision referred to above is in relation to Section 434(1)(a). Section 434(1)(c) also incorporates a deeming provision which refers to commercial insolvency. While deciding a case under Section 434(1)(c) of the Act, the total liabilities of the company including contingent and prospective liabilities have to be taken into consideration.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 3 - S Khanna - Full Document

International Seaports (Haldia) Pvt. ... vs Steel Authority Of India Limited on 22 March, 2016

The question is: When can a contracting party deduct his dues from the money in his hands belonging to the other contracting party? As would appear from Halsbury's statement of the laws of England, in common law, a creditor has the right to appropriate any money of the debtor lying in his hand "in set off" of his liquidated claim. He can withhold payment alleging a counter claim. An unliquidated claim is not treated as a debt of the debtor. It cannot normally be appropriated as the Supreme Court has said in the case of Union of India V. Raman Iron Foundry reported in (1974) 2 SCC 231. A unliquidated claim has to be liquidated or ascertained in a court of law before it could be called a debt. Before that ascertainment it cannot be adjusted against any money of the debtor in the hand of the creditor. A claim in damages falls in this category.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - I P Mukerji - Full Document

M/S. Ifci Factors Limited vs Jagannath Sarangapani & Ors. on 22 May, 2014

8. An application for leave to defend has also been filed by defendants no.2 and 3, raising almost on identically similar grounds. Additionally reliance is placed by counsel for the defendants no.2 and 3 on Union of India Vs. Iron Foundry reported at 1974 AIR 1265 and Iron and Hardware (India) Co. Vs. Firm Shamlal and Bros reported AIR 1954 BOM, 423, wherein it has been held:
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - G S Sistani - Full Document

Yogesh Aggarwal & Anr vs Vikas Goyal & Anr on 8 July, 2014

9. The present case is to be decided on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. A careful reading of the written statement would show that nothing has been pleaded except for the plea raised that on account of the fact that the plaintiff did not comply with his part of the contract, the defendant was liable to forfeit the earnest money. The relevant paragraphs of the written statement read as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - G S Sistani - Full Document

Chanani Transport vs Ms Central Coalfields Limited Through ... on 9 September, 2014

15. Relying on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in  "The Union of India Vs. Raman Iron Foundary", reported in (1974) 2   SCC 231 and other cases, the learned counsel for the petitioner has  submitted   that   without   adjudicating   the   "amount   due"   after  cancellation/  termination  of the  contract, the  respondent­  CCL is  not justified in issuing letters dated 15.01.2014 and 02/03.06.2014  whereby the petitioner­ contractor is directed to deposit a sum of  Rs.24,03,062.97/­   and   a   communication   has   been   made   to   the  General   Manager,   Kuju   Area   for   withholding   an   amount   of  Rs.   10,77,48,167.54/­   from   another   running   contract   of   the  petitioner.     The   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   has   submitted  that   the   letters   dated   15.01.2014   and   02/03.06.2014   allegedly  issued in terms of Clause 9.2 of the Contract is contrary to the law  laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.   Stressing on the words  "amount due", it is submitted that the expression used in Clause 9.2  has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to mean that  unless the amount is accepted by the other party or it is determined  by a civil court, it cannot be recovered.  It is further submitted that  in the pending Money Suit, the respondent­ CCL has already filed a  counter claim and therefore, the amount as sought to be recovered  in the present proceeding is barred in law.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Chandrashekhar - Full Document

Pabitra Naik vs Union Of India on 4 February, 2026

In Raman Iron Foundry [Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231, para 11] , the question was whether a claim for unliquidated damages does not give rise to "a debt" till the liability is determined. It was held that no debt arises from a claim for unliquidated damages until the liability is adjudicated. Even from this judgment it is not possible to hold that the liability for compensation, in the present context, arises only on determination thereof and not on the date of accident.
Orissa High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - B P Routray - Full Document

M/S Lord Shiva Construction Company ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 July, 2013

The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Raman Iron Foundry's case (supra), thus, held that the claim for liquidated or unliquidated damages would, thus, stand on the same footing with the condition that in case of the stipulated amount it has the outer limit of the damages. The right of a party aggrieved by breach of contract is to sue for damages and the claim for damages does not become a debt until adjudication. There has to be, thus, an adjudication by a judicial forum or by arbitration.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Previous   4 5 6 7 8   9 10 11 12 13 Next