Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 48 (3.84 seconds)
Documents citing M. Lachia Setty & Sons Ltd. Etc. Etc vs The Coffee Board, Bangalore on 9 October, 1980

Delhi State Industrial & ... vs Manish Goel on 25 April, 2023

...................................................................................... Reasons and Award: After going through the whole agreement along-with its schedules, a conflict in the wording of clause 12 as reproduced by claimant and schedule F is visible. Clause 12 of the agreement on page no. 36 of the agreement reads "For maintenance works including works of upgradation, aesthetics, special additions/alterations : In case of contract items which exceeds the limits laid down in the schedule contractor shall be paid rates specified in the schedule of quantities"
Delhi District Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reliance Media Works Ltd vs B.R. Films on 11 July, 2018

(supra) and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M.Lachia Setty and Sons Ltd. Vs. The Coffee Board, Bangalore, AIR 1981 SC 162 on the issue of mitigation are concerned, the same would not assist the case of the respondent since the learned arbitrator has not answered the said issue holding that the said issue would not arise. Even otherwise, in my view, the respondent had clearly not taken any steps to mitigate the alleged losses and thus those judgments would not even otherwise assist the case of the respondent.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 2 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Dcm Decometal Gmbh vs Rohit Ferro Tech Limited on 17 February, 2015

AIR 1981 Supreme Court 162 Malachia Setty and Sons Ltd. V. The Coffee Board, Bangalore, Mr. Bose further contended that while hearing a setting aside application court should not act as an appellate forum, court also should not re-appreciate the evidence adduced before the Arbitral Tribunal, furthermore, Court also should not interfere with the tribunal's interpretation, unless such interpretation are perverse or contrary to the terms of the contract.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - S Chatterjee - Full Document

Santosh Kumar Chopda vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 1 August, 2002

9. The duty to mitigate is upon the respondents as held by the Apex Court in M. Lachia Setty and Sons Ltd. v. The Coffee Board, Bangalore, AIR 1981 SC 162. The Apex Court has observed that the non-defaulting party is not expected to take steps which would injure innocent persons. In substance the question would be one of the reasonableness of action taken by the non-defaulting party to mitigate the loss. This decision has to be born in mind by adjudging the quantum of damages which non-defaulting party is entitled to receive.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 8 - A Mishra - Full Document

Bhanu Construnctions Company Ltd. Rep. ... vs A.P. State Electricity Board, Rep. By ... on 1 March, 1994

In M. Lachia Setty & Sons Ltd., case, as per condition No. 6 of conditions of sale, the Coffee Board does not bind itself to accept the highest or any bid and the Board need not assign any reasons for doing so and its decision shall be final and conclusive. The highest bid was not accepted by the Coffee Board for some reason and the Coffee Board thereupon acepted the lawest bid of and her tenderer. The Supreme Court on construction of that condition held that the Coffee Board is empowered to accept the lower bid in preference to any higher bid. We fail to see how this helps the appellant.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next