Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 340 (3.60 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974

Thar Camps Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S. Indus River Cruises Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 7 June, 2021

The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: (Raman Iron Foundry case, SCC pp. 238 & 244, paras 6 & 11) "6. ... But here the order of interim injunction made by the learned Judge does not, expressly or by necessary implication, carry any direction to the appellant to pay the amounts due to the respondent under other contracts. It is not only in form but also in substance a negative injunction. It has no positive content. What it does is merely to injunct the appellant from recovering, suo motu, the damages claimed by it from out of other amounts due to the respondent. It does not direct that the appellant shall pay such amounts to the respondent. The appellant can still refuse to pay such amounts if it thinks it has a valid defence and if the appellant does so, the only remedy open to the respondent would be to take measures in an appropriate forum for recovery of such amounts where it would be decided whether the appellant is liable to pay such amounts to the respondent or not. No breach of the order of interim injunction as such would be involved in non-payment of such amounts by the appellant to the respondent. The only thing which the appellant is interdicted from doing is to make recovery of its claim for damages by appropriating such amounts in satisfaction of the claim. That is clearly within the power of the court under Section 41(b) because the claim for damages forms the subject- matter of the arbitration proceedings and the court can always say that until such claim is adjudicated upon, the appellant shall be restrained from recovering it by appropriating other amounts due to the respondent.
Delhi High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 1 - C H Shankar - Full Document

B.B. Verma And Anr. And S.C. Batra And ... vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 25 September, 2007

6. Mr. Arya submitted that in view of the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry and State of Karnataka v. Rameshwar Rice Mills Thirthahalli (supra), the view taken by the Division Bench in the two decisions in Ch. Chandra Shekhar v. State of M.P. and Ors. and Seth Mohanlal Hiralal v. State of M.P. and Anr. (supra), that the State Government and its officers can recover the amount from the contractor as damages under Clause 4.3.38.1 of the agreement as arrear of revenue without decision by the S.E. and thereafter by the Tribunal under the Adhiniyam is not correct in law.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 79 - Full Document

Kamaluddin Ansari & Co vs Union Of India on 12 August, 1983

Shri Kacker on the other hand contends that though the words used in the opening part of cl. 18 are "any claim for the payment of a sum of money", which are general words of apparently wide amplitude sufficient to cover even a claim for damages arising out of the contract, a proper construction of the clause read as a whole clearly suggests that these words are intended to refer only to a claim for a sum due and payable and do not take in a claim for damages which is disputed by the contractor. It is only when a claim for damages is adjudicated upon by a civil court or an arbitrator and the breach of the contract is established and the amount of damages ascertained and decreed that a debt due and payable comes into 620 existence; till then it is nothing more than a mere right to sue for damages, and it does not fall within the words of cl. 18. Moreover, cl. 18 merely provides a mode of recovery and it can have no application where a claim, even though it be for a sum due and payable, is disputed by the contractor and has to be established in a court of law or by arbitration. Clause 18 applies only where a claim is either admitted, or in case of dispute, substantiated by resort to the judicial process. Therefore, when a purchaser has a claim for damages which is disputed by the contractor, the purchaser is not entitled under cl. 18 to recover the amount of its claim for damages by appropriating other sums due to the contractor until the claim for damages is adjudicated upon and culminates in a decree. The respondent had consequently no right under cl. 18 to appropriate sums due to the appellant under other contracts in satisfaction of its claim for damages against the appellant, when the claim for damages was pending adjudication This Court in Union v. Raman Iron Foundry (supra) while construing cl. 18 of the standard contract observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - R B Misra - Full Document

University Of Delhi & Another vs Dr. S.R. Gupta & Another on 26 May, 2000

4. The application filed by the plaintiff for interim relief was heard and disposed of by the learned Civil Judge on 1st August, 1998 directing the defendants to take necessary steps within 15 days from the date of the order to consider the claim of the plaintiff for the post of Head of Department of Library & Information Science. In the said order dated 1st August, 1998, the learned Civil Judge observed that the eligibility of the plaintiff for appointment to the post of Head of the Department had not been disputed by the defendant in the written statement and that the only reason given by the defendant for not appointing him was the pendency of some enquiry against him. The learned Civil Judge further observed that the only significant question for disposing of the application was whether on the date of consideration of the claim of the plaintiff for the post of Head of the Department, any enquiry could be said to have been pending on the basis of which the claim of the plaintiff could not be considered. According to the learned Civil Judge, even though Shri I.P. Singh was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into certain incident of alleged misbehaviour by the plaintiff towards Professor P.B. Mangla and Professor J.C. Sardana of the same department and there was some preliminary investigation in the matter, the preliminary enquiry had not been conclued and no charge sheet had been served on the plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge also observed that the defendants were not certain about the possible outcome of the preliminary enquiry and whether the defendants would be willing to initiate any action against the plaintiff. On that basis, the learned Civil Judge concluded that it could not be considered that on the date of issuing the impugned Notification dated 21st November, 1997 appointing Professor Krishan Kumar to discharge current duty of the Head of the Department. Any enquiry was pending against the plaintiff. According to the learned Civil Judge, the stand of the defendants denying the post of Head of the Department to the plaintiff on the ground of pendency of an enquiry against him is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in UOI Vs. Janaki Raman, .
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - C Joseph - Full Document

Tuncay Alankus And Anr. vs Union Of India on 26 May, 2000

4. The application filed by the plaintiff for interim relief was heard and disposed of by the learned Civil Judge on 1st August, 1998 directing the defendants to take necessary steps within 15 days from the date of the order to consider the claim of the plaintiff for the post of Head of Department of Library & Information Science. In the said order dated 1st August, 1998, the learned Civil Judge observed that the eligibility of the plaintiff for appointment to the post of Head of the Department had not been disputed by the defendant in the written statement and that the only reason given by the defendant for not appointing him was the pendency of some enquiry against him. The learned Civil Judge further observed that the only significant question for disposing of the application was whether on the date of consideration of the claim of the plaintiff for the post of Head of the Department, any enquiry could be said to have been pending on the basis of which the claim of the plaintiff could not be considered. According to the learned Civil Judge, even though Shri I.P. Singh was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into certain incident of alleged misbehaviour by the plaintiff towards Professor P.B. Mangla and Professor J.C. Sardana of the same department and there was some preliminary investigation in the matter, the preliminary enquiry had not been conclued and no charge sheet had been served on the plaintiff. The learned Civil Judge also observed that the defendants were not certain about the possible outcome of the preliminary enquiry and whether the defendants would be willing to initiate any action against the plaintiff. On that basis, the learned Civil Judge concluded that it could not be considered that on the date of issuing the impugned Notification dated 21st November, 1997 appointing Professor Krishan Kumar to discharge current duty of the Head of the Department. Any enquiry was pending against the plaintiff. According to the learned Civil Judge, the stand of the defendants denying the post of Head of the Department to the plaintiff on the ground of pendency of an enquiry against him is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in UOI Vs. Janaki Raman, .
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - M S Siddiqui - 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

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
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next