Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974

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

Mrs. Madhu Garg And Anr. vs North Delhi Power Ltd. [Along With W.P. ... on 9 November, 2005

So far as the said civil remedy is concerned it may be relevant to immediately refer to the decision dated 6th May, 1977 of this Court in CW No. 1331 of 1976 titled as Palam Potteries v. Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking, wherein it had been observed that an amount claimed as arrears cannot be assumed to be due until it is adjudicated upon, on the analogy of the ratio of Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry . It appear to me that wherever a genuine dispute arises as to the arrears or quantum of electricity consumed by a consumer the salutary principle for the Court to follow would be to direct a proper adjudication thereof, with a direction nonetheless to deposit whatever appears to be the admitted or un-contestable sum. Returning now to Isha Marbles, the Supreme Court reproduced a part of the High Court judgment which may be summarized as being "consumer-centric" in contradistinction to "premises-centric", if I may be permitted to coin these terms. It had opined that "it is clear that the High Court has chosen to construe Section 24 of the Electricity Act correctly. There is no charge over the property. Where that premises comes to be owned or occupied by the auction-purchaser, when such purchaser seeks supply of electric energy he cannot be called upon to clear the past arrears as a condition precedent to supply. What matters is the contract entered into by the erstwhile consumer with the Board. The board cannot seek the enforcement of contractual liability against the third party. Of course, the bona fides of the sale may not be relevant." The legal position was thereafter enunciated in these words:
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 41 - V Sen - Full Document
1