Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.41 seconds)
Documents citing National Highways Authority India vs Mecon-Gea Energy Systems India Ltd Jv on 2 April, 2013

National Highways Authority Of India vs M/S Pcl-Sticco (Jv) on 30 January, 2017

24. Referring to Clause 52, Dr George submitted that a clause in the contract that curtailed the right of a party to pursue its claims under law would be hit by Section 28 (a) and (d) of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 (ICA) as explained by this Court in Union of India v. Pt. Munshi Ram & Associates Pvt. Ltd. 2013 I AD (Del) 801 and National Highways Authority of India v. Mecon-Gea Energy Systems India Ltd. 199 (2013) DLT 397.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

National Highways Authority Of India vs M/S Bhagheeratha Engineering Limited on 5 July, 2019

5. Indeed, as pointed out by Dr. George, the language of the said clause does FAO (OS) (COMM.) 148/2019 Page 2 of 6 not appear to make it mandatory. Further, if such a requirement was mandatory, it would render the clause invalid. A clause of a similar nature which required the Claimant to issue a notice of its intention to make a claim to an Engineer within 28 days after the event, failing which the claim would be time-barred, was held to be hit by Section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872 by this Court in National Highways Authority of India v. Mecom-Gea Energy Systems Authority India 199 (2013) DLT 397. It was held that:
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

National Highways Authority Of India vs Pcl €“ Suncon (Jv) on 30 January, 2017

In any event, as pointed out by learned counsel for the Respondent, to the extent that Clause 53.1 of the GCC requires the claimant to issue a notice of its intention to the Engineer within 28 days after the event, failing which the claim would be time barred, is hit by Section 26 of the Contract Act 1872 as explained by this Court in National Highways Authority of India v. Mecon- Gea Energy Systems India Ltd. JV 199 (2013) DLT 397.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited vs M/S Carrycon India Limited on 9 April, 2018

6. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, MTNL contended that the claims made by Carrycon were barred by limitation as they were preferred beyond the period of three months provided under Clause XIX of the NIT, for raising any claims or disputes. The said contention was rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal by referring to the decision of this O.M.P. (COMM) 288/2016 Page 5 of 14 Court in National Highways Authority of India v. MECON - GEA Energy Systems India Ltd. : 199 (2013) DLT 397.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document
1