Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974

North Karanpura Transmission Company ... vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 23 February, 2023

80. (iv) Three vessels, which stood berthed off the coast of Kolkata, constituted the subject matter of controversy in the petition, preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in THAR CAMPS PVT LTD VS INDUS RIVER CRUISES PVT LTD : 2021 SCC Online Del 3150. The Delhi High Court relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231 wherein it was held that a claim for damages for breach of contract was not a claim for a sum presently due and payable; damages are the compensation which a Court of Law gives to a party for the injury he has sustained and the plaintiff does not get damages or compensation by reason of any existing obligation on the part of the person who has committed the breach; he gets compensation as a result of the fiat of the Court; therefore, it has to be decided by the Court, in the first instance, that the defendant is liable and then it proceeds to assess what that liability is; till that determination, there is no liability at all upon the defendant; and there would not be any debt payable unless the Court determines the liability.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 82 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Inox Green Energy Services Ltd & Ors vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 24 February, 2023

The Supreme Court, in Amber Builders, examined the correctness of the view taken in Gangotri Enterprises, and observed that Page 20 of 43 Order in IA No. 1010 of 2022 in Appeal No. 292 of 2022 the said judgement was primarily based on the judgment of a two-Judge Bench, in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231, wherein it was held that the Government had no right to appropriate the amount claimed without getting it first adjudicated; the judgment in Raman Iron Foundry, was specifically overruled on the issue in hand by a three- Judge Bench in H.M. Kamaluddin Ansari & Co. v. Union of India, (1983) 4 SCC 417 wherein there was a general condition which entitled the Government to recover the damages claimed by appropriating any sum which may become due to the contractor under other pending bills. The three judge bench, in Kamaluddin Ansari, disagreed with the findings in Raman Iron Foundry and held that, if an order injuncted a party from withholding the amount due to the other side under pending bills in other contracts, the order necessarily meant that the amount must be paid; and an injunction order, restraining the respondents from withholding the amount due under other pending bills to the contractor, virtually amounted to a direction to pay the amount to the contractor-appellant.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 44 - Cited by 1 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

M/S. Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd vs M/S. Sujana Universal Industries ... on 28 July, 2015

(Registrar of Companies, Gujarat v. Kavita Benefit Pvt. Ltd. ; Bichitrananda Panda v. Orissa Construction Corporation Ltd. ; Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry ; Webb13). If there is a liability in praesenti, the fact that the amount is yet to be ascertained does not make it any the less a debt. (Kesoram Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd.11). The meaning which is ascribed to the word "debt" generally, can be ascribed to the word "debt" in clause (e) of section 433 of the Companies Act in as much as there is nothing in that clause which circumscribes such a meaning. (Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd.12).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 67 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

N.C.C. Limited vs Sembcorp Gayatri Power Limited And ... on 24 October, 2017

The Learned Judge referred to Clause 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2 and 4.1 of the co-ordination agreement, and then observed that the appellant had not filed any documentary evidence to show that they had taken measures to ensure that the delay of CTC was not caused on account of their failure or breaches; and the appellant had failed to establish that there was egregious fraud on the part of the first respondent by producing cogent and convincing documentary evidence. After referring to Ansal Engineering Projects Limited v. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd , Gujarat Maritime Board v. L&T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd , and Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd v. Tarapore & Co. , the Learned Judge held that, in the instant case, the appellant had contended that the first respondent was due around Rs.300 crores to them in all the contracts; reliance placed by them on Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India was misplaced; reliance placed by them on Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry was also misplaced; in the instant case the dispute, among the parties, was an arbitral dispute, and had to be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal; the appellant had not established a strong prima facie case; the balance of convenience was also not in its favour; and the appellant had also failed to establish that irreparable loss and injury would be caused to them if the relief of injunction sought for was not granted in their favour. The Learned Judge dismissed all the petitions filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the 1996 Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N.C.C. Limited vs Sembcorp Gayatri Power Limited And ... on 24 October, 2017

The Learned Judge referred to Clause 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2 and 4.1 of the co-ordination agreement, and then observed that the appellant had not filed any documentary evidence to show that they had taken measures to ensure that the delay of CTC was not caused on account of their failure or breaches; and the appellant had failed to establish that there was egregious fraud on the part of the first respondent by producing cogent and convincing documentary evidence. After referring to Ansal Engineering Projects Limited v. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd , Gujarat Maritime Board v. L&T Infrastructure Development Projects Ltd , and Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd v. Tarapore & Co. , the Learned Judge held that, in the instant case, the appellant had contended that the first respondent was due around Rs.300 crores to them in all the contracts; reliance placed by them on Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India was misplaced; reliance placed by them on Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry was also misplaced; in the instant case the dispute, among the parties, was an arbitral dispute, and had to be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal; the appellant had not established a strong prima facie case; the balance of convenience was also not in its favour; and the appellant had also failed to establish that irreparable loss and injury would be caused to them if the relief of injunction sought for was not granted in their favour. The Learned Judge dismissed all the petitions filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the 1996 Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 79 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1