Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 121 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar vs Union Of India on 25 May, 2006

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Himachal Futuristic Communications ... on 30 May, 2012

BSNL granted extension of time till 15th January 1998 subject to levy of LD and subject to the supplies being made in terms of the new technical specifications. In continuation of the said letter BSNL wrote to HFCL on 12th December 1997 intimating that the supply would be made at the unit rate of Rs. 5,89,338.22. The above correspondence unmistakably shows that the original contract conditions stood modified by consent of parties and the clauses concerning time and price stood amended and were accepted without protest by HFCL. The learned Arbitrator completely overlooked the legal position flowing from Section 62 of the Contract Act and the law explained in Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar v. Union of India. The impugned Award erroneously holds that the principles of novation were not attracted in the instant case. The learned Arbitrator committed a patent illegality in not even discussing the above correspondence and therefore erred in concluding that BSNL had acted arbitrarily in terminating the contract. The facts unmistakably show that it was HFCL which was in breach of the conditions of the contract and failed to deliver the contracted quantities within the time stipulated despite extensions granted for that purpose.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Sudhakar L Auchite vs D/O Atomic Energy on 16 November, 2021

4(g). There is no violation of views in the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Dipika Kantilal Shukla Vs. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Appeal No.10232/1996 dated 28.02.2006, and Principal Bench decision of this Tribunal in Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India in O.A.11/2014 dated 18.12.2014, as the transfer and relieving order of the applicant have been issued as per the stipulations of the Transfer Policy. The other caselaws relied upon by the applicant were based on different facts and, therefore, they are not of help to him.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shyam Narayan Verma vs Union Of India Thr.Secy.Ministry Of ... on 7 December, 2016

The second contention with regard to the option available for changing the site on the strength of the judgment in Pawan Kumar Singh's case (Supra) is also unacceptable. The said judgment does not lay down the law on a consideration of the relevant provisions as has been pointed out in this case and therefore, as would be evident from the findings recorded hereinafter the aforesaid judgment would not be a ratio so as to attract the principles of a binding nature of a precedent.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Maheswari Enterprises vs Union Of India on 25 April, 2017

3. It appears from the order dated 13.10.2004 passed by this Court that the initial plea taken by the appellant before ths Court was that the decision of this Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar vs. Union of India, reported in 2000 (3) GLT 66 is not applicable. This Court has recorded in the said order dated 13.10.2004 that no force was found in the aforesaid plea. However, on the submission made by the learned MFA 122/2004 Page 1 of 5 counsel for the appellant that a similar matter, being MFA 118/2004 was admitted for hearing, this present appeal was directed to be tagged along with MFA 118/2004. Incidentally, the said MFA No. 118/2004 was withdrawn today, owing to which the said appeal was dismissed on withdrawal.
Gauhati High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K R Surana - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next