Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 79 (2.42 seconds)
Documents citing Union Territory Of Pondicherry And ... vs P.V. Suresh And Others on 23 September, 1993

P.P.Thomas vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 July, 2022

27. With specific reference to the note under clause 12, the defendants submitted that the contract prohibits escalation due to any cause whatsoever. With regard to the washing-away of the ghat-road, the defendants relied on clause 18 which mandates that the contractor should form his own approach to the work site for which no extra charges would be paid to him. With regard to the requirement of obtaining blasting licence, by drawing reference to clause 2 of the additional special conditions, the defendants contended that the contractor is required to obtain explosive licence and blasting licence for quarrying rocks. With specific reference to clause 5 of part - 1 general conditions, the defendants contended that the contractor is not entitled to make any claims due to unforeseen circumstances, such as floods, which cause suspension of work. The defendants also adverted to clause 21, which deals with risk insurance and pointed out that the plaintiff failed to insure itself against risk of loss due to floods, fire, etc. By drawing reference to the Madras Detailed Standard Specification, which were incorporated by reference in the contract, the defendants pointed out that clause 59 thereof provides that no claim due to any cause whatsoever shall lie, and that the contractor is only entitled to reasonable extension of time. In the light of the above clauses, the defendants submitted that none of the monetary claims made by the contractor are liable to be allowed. The defendants further contended that the Court cannot disregard contractual terms or re-write the contract by relying on Union Territory of Pondicherry v. P.V.Suresh https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/79 C.S.No.190 of 2012 (1994) 2 SCC 79. Even otherwise, it was submitted that the plaintiff did not prove the claims for damages in terms of Section 73 of the Contract Act.
Madras High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - S Ramamoorthy - Full Document

P.P.Thomas vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 July, 2022

27. With specific reference to the note under clause 12, the defendants submitted that the contract prohibits escalation due to any cause whatsoever. With regard to the washing-away of the ghat-road, the defendants relied on clause 18 which mandates that the contractor should form his own approach to the work site for which no extra charges would be paid to him. With regard to the requirement of obtaining blasting licence, by drawing reference to clause 2 of the additional special conditions, the defendants contended that the contractor is required to obtain explosive licence and blasting licence for quarrying rocks. With specific reference to clause 5 of part - 1 general conditions, the defendants contended that the contractor is not entitled to make any claims due to unforeseen circumstances, such as floods, which cause suspension of work. The defendants also adverted to clause 21, which deals with risk insurance and pointed out that the plaintiff failed to insure itself against risk of loss due to floods, fire, etc. By drawing reference to the Madras Detailed Standard Specification, which were incorporated by reference in the contract, the defendants pointed out that clause 59 thereof provides that no claim due to any cause whatsoever shall lie, and that the contractor is only entitled to reasonable extension of time. In the light of the above clauses, the defendants submitted that none of the monetary claims made by the contractor are liable to be allowed. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/80 C.S.No.190 of 2012 defendants further contended that the Court cannot disregard contractual terms or re-write the contract by relying on Union Territory of Pondicherry v. P.V.Suresh (1994) 2 SCC 79. Even otherwise, it was submitted that the plaintiff did not prove the claims for damages in terms of Section 73 of the Contract Act.
Madras High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 1 - S Ramamoorthy - Full Document

P.P.Thomas vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 13 July, 2022

27. With specific reference to the note under clause 12, the defendants submitted that the contract prohibits escalation due to any cause whatsoever. With regard to the washing-away of the ghat-road, the defendants relied on clause 18 which mandates that the contractor should form his own approach to the work site for which no extra charges would be paid to him. With regard to the requirement of obtaining blasting licence, by drawing reference to clause 2 of the additional special conditions, the defendants contended that the contractor is required to obtain explosive licence and blasting licence for quarrying rocks. With specific reference to clause 5 of part - 1 general conditions, the defendants contended that the contractor is not entitled to make any claims due to unforeseen circumstances, such as floods, which cause suspension of work. The defendants also adverted to clause 21, which deals with risk insurance and pointed out that the plaintiff failed to insure itself against risk of loss due to floods, fire, etc. By drawing reference to the Madras Detailed Standard Specification, which were incorporated by reference in the contract, the defendants pointed out that clause 59 thereof provides that no claim due to any cause whatsoever shall lie, and that the contractor is only entitled to reasonable extension of time. In the light of the above clauses, the defendants submitted that none of the monetary claims made by the contractor are liable to be allowed. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 27/80 C.S.No.190 of 2012 defendants further contended that the Court cannot disregard contractual terms or re-write the contract by relying on Union Territory of Pondicherry v. P.V.Suresh (1994) 2 SCC 79. Even otherwise, it was submitted that the plaintiff did not prove the claims for damages in terms of Section 73 of the Contract Act.
Madras High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - S Ramamoorthy - Full Document

M/S Jas Toll Road Company Ltd. vs National Highway Authority Of India on 31 July, 2023

The decisions in Union Territory of Pondicherry v. P.V. Suresh20, Shree Ambica Medical Stores v. Surat People's Co- operative Bank Limited 21, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. v Pearl Beverages Ltd.22, Tata Consultancy Services v. Cyrus Investments (P) Ltd.23 and Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission24, also hold that clauses of a commercial contract cannot be rewritten by a court or arbitral tribunal.
Delhi High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Rajendra Institute Of Medical Sciences ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 11 September, 2023

Further, the terms and conditions available in the offer of adornment to such an appointment which does not govern that the service condition is binding upon the parties. If one party is not following the same, the same will be breach of the terms and conditions of the appointment letters and in that view of the matter, there cannot be interference by the Court of Law otherwise the same will lead to re-writing the terms and conditions of the contract arrived at in between the parties, which is not permissible. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union Territory of Pondicherry and Ors Vs. P.V. Suresh and Ors., reported in (1994) 2 SCC 70. At paragraph 11 of the aforesaid decision, it has been held that the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms or re-write the contract between the parties. Paragraph 11 is being referred as under:-
Jharkhand High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

Chandrapal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 November, 2023

In V.C. Mishra case [(1995) 2 SCC 584] the Bench relied upon its inherent powers under Article 142 to punish him by suspending his licence, without the Bar Council having been given any opportunity to deal with his case under the Act. We cannot persuade ourselves to agree with that approach. It must be remembered that wider the amplitude of its power under Article 142, the greater is the need of care for this Court to see that the power is used with restraint without pushing back the limits of the Constitution so as to function within the bounds of its own jurisdiction. To the extent this Court makes the statutory authorities and other organs of the State perform their duties in accordance with law, its role is unexceptionable but it is not permissible for the Court to "take over" the role of the statutory bodies or other organs of the State and "perform" their functions."
Allahabad High Court Cites 379 - Cited by 0 - P Diwaker - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next