Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (1.64 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974

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

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

Baker Hughes Singapore Pte vs Shiv-Vani Oil And Gas Exploration ... on 11 November, 2014

45. In the impugned order, the learned arbitrator observed that the claim was not in the nature of un-liquidated damages. Though the arbitral tribunal made these observations and adverted to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs.Raman Iron Foundry (supra) was oblivious of the fact that the counter claim of the respondent was more than the claim of the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 18 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Ultratech Cement Ltd. Formerly Known As ... vs Sunfield Resources Pvt. Ltd on 21 December, 2016

There was a demurrage clause. There was inter alia a dispute under the contract which was referred for arbitration. The Arbitrators had awarded Rs.11,83,645.80 towards demurrage and interest to be paid thereon by the petitioner. In assailing the award, the petitioner contended that the Arbitrators have awarded demurrage as liquidated damages which was contrary to the express provisions of the Contract Act. On this background, the learned Judge applied the test of commercial practice and referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case "Fateh Chand v. Balkishan Das" (supra) and "Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry" (supra) and referring to the English law on 'demurrage' observed that the concept of demurrage is capable of two shades of meaning. Firstly the demurrage means a sum agreed by the charterer to be paid as liquidated damages for the detention of the ship beyond its stipulated or reasonable time for loading or unloading as described in "Scrutton on Charterparty, 20th Edition, page 298". It was observed that the other meaning which can be attributed to the concept of demurrage is that demurrage means nothing more than a liquidated sum payable by the charterer to the owner for the further time taken in loading or unloading after the expiry of the lay time. It was observed that in view of this second interpretation the demurrage is nothing but a liquidated price payable to ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 01:07:45 ::: PVR 85 app881-05.doc the owner for using the ship beyond the period of lay time and on this interpretation, demurrage sounds more in debt than in damages.
Bombay High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 13 - G S Kulkarni - 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

Indiabulls Properties Pvt vs Treasure World Developers on 28 February, 2014

35. The Division Bench then considered the law enunciated in Union of India v Raman Foundry.13 Four decades after it was delivered, that decision is still a locus classicus. In Indian law, Raman Foundry says, there is no qualitative difference between liquidated damages and unliquidated damages. All that Section 74 does is to eliminate the nice distinctions between contractual provisions for liquidated damages and those in the nature of a penalty, or in terrorem clauses. The latter are not enforced. The amount of liquidated damages is only the outer limit of what is recoverable. It is not automatically guaranteed as the claimant's entitlement. It does not, eo instanti, create any pecuniary liability or obligation, or a corresponding entitlement to the claimant.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - G S Patel - 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

Maharashtra Cricket Association Thr. ... vs Shapoorji Pallonji And Co. Pvt. Ltd on 10 July, 2017

In 25/30 ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:38:29 ::: 26/30 arbpst 5602.17.doc any event, as rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel for SPCL, the claim for alleged damages does not give rise to a debt until the liability is adjudicated and damage assessed by decree or order of the Court or other adjudicating authority as held in the case of Union of India vs. Raman Iron Foundry (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A A Sayed - Full Document

Maharashtra Cricket Association Thr. ... vs Shapoorji Pallonji And Co. Pvt. Ltd on 10 July, 2017

In 25/30 ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 13/07/2017 00:38:27 ::: 26/30 arbpst 5602.17.doc any event, as rightly contended by learned Senior Counsel for SPCL, the claim for alleged damages does not give rise to a debt until the liability is adjudicated and damage assessed by decree or order of the Court or other adjudicating authority as held in the case of Union of India vs. Raman Iron Foundry (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A A Sayed - Full Document

National Securities Clearing ... vs Prime Broking Company (India) Ltd. Cin ... on 28 June, 2016

Therefore what we in India have come to accept falls in line more with the view of Lord Denning, M.R. (as he then was) that there must be substance in the plea of cross-claim or counter-claim. Mr. Sundaraswamy relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundary [(1974) 2 SCC 231 : A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1265] to the effect that claims of damages are really not to be taken note of till they are quantified. In the case on hand process of quantification has commenced only during the hearing of the case.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - B P Colabawalla - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next