Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (2.70 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Andhra Pradesh vs M/S. Associated Engineering ... on 24 March, 1989

T.A. Choudhary vs State Of A.P. And Ors. on 1 May, 2003

Even in Associated Engineer's case (supra), the Division Bench, apart from the other factual matters, observed that, inasmuch as, the Contractor had accepted the extension without making any protest or serving any notice that he would be entitled to claim the compensation. But, that situation is not present in the case on hand. The Contractor has specifically indicated his intention while accepting the extension. Further, another distinguishing feature that can be noticed in the case on hand is that the delay which is caused by the Department is a positive act of interference which totally disabled the Contractor from undertaking the work and completing the same within the time. What was claimed is neither the loss of profit nor the market rates, but since the extension was made at the instance of the Department on the ground that there were delays and defaults attributable to the Department and the value of the work done was claimed on the basis of the S.S.R. rates which were prevailing when the work was done beyond the period of agreement. Therefore, it cannot be said to be escalation of rate. But, it is only the S.S.R. rates which is notified by the Government during the particular year and what was claimed by the Contractor is the said rate and not the escalated rate namely the market rate. Thus, the judgment relied on by the learned Government Pleader has no application to the facts of the case.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 73 - Cited by 6 - R S Reddy - Full Document

Durgaram Prasad, Engineers And ... vs The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By The ... on 1 March, 1996

It is settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sudarsan Trading Company v. Govt. of Kerala, and State of A.P. v. Associated Engineering Enterprises, Hyderabad (3 supra) that if the arbitrator ignores the plain terms of the contract and gives an award which flies in the face of the contract, he will be committing an error of jurisdiction and that will be an independent ground of attack of an award, whether it be a speaking or non-speaking award. However, it is not necessary for us to go into the larger question whether Clause 59 defeats the claim of the appellant and whether on a true construction of Clause 59, the award can be said to be without jurisdiction. The reason is that at no point of time, the respondent relied on Clause 59 except perhaps at the stage of arguments before the lower Court. In the counter to the claim statement, we find no reference at all to Clause 59. Even in the plaint or the written statement, no reference to Clause 59 or the principle akin to Clause 59 was pleaded. Omission to make specific reference to Clause 59 apart, the Government did not choose to raise a plea that under the contractual provisions, they are not liable for any compensation for the alleged delays and defaults. The plea taken by the respondent-Government was that the contractor himself is to be blamed for the delay in the execution of the work, that there was no breach of contract on their part and in fact there was no proof of extra expenditure having been incurred by the contractor. Clause 59 was not pressed into service even indirectly or by implication. Clause 59 being a drastic provision excluding liability even in the case of delays or hindrances caused by the employer who awarded the work cannot be legitimately brought into the picture before the civil Court at the stage of arguments. The respondent never wanted to bank on Clause 59 for reasons of its own. At any rate, when such a plea was not taken before the arbitrator, it is futile to contend that the arbitrator had committed an error of law apparent on the face of the award by not giving effect to Clause 59.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - P V Reddi - Full Document

M. Gangareddy, Rep. By His G.P.A., A. ... vs The State Of A.P. Rep. By The ... on 14 June, 1996

" Looked at from another point, if there was a dispute as to whether under this term of the contract the arbitrator was prohibited from awarding interest pendente lite, that was a matter which fell within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, as the arbitrator would have to interpret Sub-clause (g) of Clause 13 of the contract and decide whether that clause prohibits from awarding interest pendente lite. In that case it cannot be said that the arbitrator had wandered outside the contract to deny to him jurisdiction to decide the question regarding payment of interest pendente lite. Even if we were to accept the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on paragraphs 26 and 29 of the Associated Engineering Co. case (2 supra) we think that the arbitrator was well within his jurisdiction in awarding interest pendente lite. "
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Prasad & Co. vs The Superintending Engineer And Ors. on 5 July, 1995

18. It is significant to notice that in the present case, the work was done only for a period of two months beyond the stipulted period of completion of the work, because, as already noticed, the contract was admittedly closed on 20-3-1976. Even if there was escalation of material cost and labour charges, it cannot be a ground to seek additional rate on the ground of equity or otherwise. We would like to clarify that we are not concerned here with a case where the contract had to be performed with a delay on account of beach of promises on the part of the Department. Assuming that there was some delay in handing over the site, the appellant proceeded with the execution of the contract and it is not his case that he gave any notice reserving his right to claim compensation under the third limb of Section 55 of the Contract Act. This was considered to be one of the grounds to reject the claim for escalation charges by a Division Bench of this court in State of A.P. v. Associated Engineering Enterprises .
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 29 - Cited by 9 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. vs V. Satyam Rao on 8 December, 1995

"Relying on this provision in the Agreement, the claim for compensation or escalation or payment of extra amount over and above the contracted rates was negatived by this court atleast in three decisions. (Vide State of A.P. v. Associated Engineering Enterprises (supra), CMA No. 786/86 dated 1.12.1988 and CMA No. 998/84 dated 19.8.1989). The last decision was a case in which the claim was made for extra payment on account of escalation of costs for the work done beyond the agreement period. One of the grounds alleged by the contractor was delay in handing over the site free of crops. The other grounds pleaded were found to be totally irrelevant. The learned Judges, relying, inter alia, on P.S. 59 of APDSS, rejected the claim. The claims of the contractor in the present case is still worse. He wants escalation over and above the agreed rates even during the currency of the agreement period."
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Steel Authority Of India Limited vs Tapas Kumar Roy on 15 October, 2007

12. It is, therefore, not possible to find out whether the claim on account of escalation of prices allowed by the learned Arbitrator was barred by limitation without reappreciation of the evidence. The judgment relied upon by Mr. Ghosh in the case of State of A.P. v. Associated Engineering (supra) has no manner of application for in that case the contract between the parties barred any such claim which would be evident from paragraph 22 of the said judgment which reads as follows:
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - G C Gupta - Full Document

Jindal Itf Ltd. vs Ntpc Limited on 30 January, 2025

"13. A Division Bench decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in State of A.P. v. Associated Engineering Enterprises, Hyderabad [AIR 1990 AP 294 : (1989) 2 An LT 372] is of relevance. Jeevan Reddy, J. (as His Lordship then was), speaking for the Division Bench, held that where clause 59 of the standard terms and conditions of the contract provided that neither party to the contract shall claim compensation "on account of delays or hindrances to the work from any cause whatever", an award given by an arbitrator ignoring such express terms of the contract was bad. We find ourselves in agreement with the view so taken.
Delhi High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - D K Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 Next