Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Maytas Infra Limited vs Utility Energytech & Engineers ... on 20 August, 2009

B.E. Billimoria And Co.Ltd vs Mahindra Bebanco Developoers Ltd. And ... on 2 May, 2017

77. This Court in case of Maytas Infra Limited vs. Utility Energytech & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., (2009) 4 Bom.C.R. 143 has held that the Court cannot compel the respondent to continue with the contract. It is difficult for the Court even to supervise such performance of contract, based upon such type of public project. This Court accordingly refused to grant any relief under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in favour of the petitioner. The said judgment would apply to the facts of this case. I am respectfully bound by the said judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Housing Society Ltd vs Maharashtra Airport Development ... on 29 November, 2013

18. In these circumstances, in my prima facie view, the respondent was justified in terminating the contract. In my view, even though there is no provision in the contract entered into between the parties permitting either party to terminate the contract, since events of default on the part of one party had already occurred, other party is entitled to terminate the contract under Asmita 46/53 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:05 ::: .. 47 .. ARBPL-1999/13 the provisions of the Indian Contract Act. If the submission of Mr.Apte learned Senior Counsel is accepted, in the absence of specific clause permitting either of the party to terminate the contract even if breaches are committed is accepted, no contract can be terminated even if one party has committed breach and the other party would have to continue his contractual rights. In my view, in such a situation, the provisions of the Indian Contract Act would be attracted. In my prima facie view, the respondent was thus justified in terminating the contract. I am in agreement with the view expressed by the Delhi High Court in case of Rajasthan Breveries Ltd. (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Milan Commercial Pvt.Ltd vs Asian Healthcare Services Limited on 16 November, 2009

56 Once in a commercial contract like this, if parties have taken decision based upon the commercial wisdom and material available with them, and terminated the contract and entered into fresh contract, the Court cannot compel such party to continue with the work/project only through the debarred party. The facet and importance of completion of the project within the stipulated time just cannot be overlooked. The contract, as alleged, if terminated illegally and/or any breach of various clauses, the aspect of compensation/damages subject to proof and the evidence need to be kept in mind while considering the case of the plaintiff or the supporting defendants. [Maytas Infra Limited vs. Utility Energytech and Engineers Pvt.Ltd. & ors., 2009 (4) Bom.C.R. 143.].
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A V Mohta - Full Document

Nirmal Infrastructure Private Limited vs Aanant Developers Private Limited on 26 November, 2015

75. This Court in Chaurangi Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd. in its judgment dated 29th November, 2013 in Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No.1999 of 2013 after adverting to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Cox & Kings India Limited Vs. Indian Railways Catering & Tourism Corporation Limited, (2012) 7 SCC 587 and the judgment of this Court in Maytas Infra Limited Vs. Utility Energytech & Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2009(4) Bom. C.R. 143 and several other judgments has held that though a party had invested a large sum of money in the project, but that cannot entitle it to pray for a mandatory order to operate the contract once it is noted that the remedy of the petitioner would be if any in action for damages against the respondent for breach of any of the terms and conditions of the contract. This Court in that judgment refused to grant stay of termination of the agreement. Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner against the said order is ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2015 23:59:29 ::: Kvm 34 ARBPL1932.15 dismissed.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document
1