Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.34 seconds)
Documents citing Seth Mohanlal Hiralal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 31 January, 2001

B.B. Verma And Anr. And S.C. Batra And ... vs State Of M.P. And Anr. on 25 September, 2007

6. Mr. Arya submitted that in view of the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry and State of Karnataka v. Rameshwar Rice Mills Thirthahalli (supra), the view taken by the Division Bench in the two decisions in Ch. Chandra Shekhar v. State of M.P. and Ors. and Seth Mohanlal Hiralal v. State of M.P. and Anr. (supra), that the State Government and its officers can recover the amount from the contractor as damages under Clause 4.3.38.1 of the agreement as arrear of revenue without decision by the S.E. and thereafter by the Tribunal under the Adhiniyam is not correct in law.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 79 - Full Document

M/S Suman Infrastructure Private ... vs Public Works Department on 9 October, 2020

In the two decisions of the Division Bench in Ch. Chandra Shekhar v. State of M.P. and Ors. and Seth Mohanlal Hiralal v. State of M.P. and Anr. (supra), there is also no reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Rameshwar Rice Mills Thirthahalli (supra), in which Clause 12 of the agreement with the State of Mysore and a private person for purchase of paddy under the Paddy Procurement Scheme, 1959 inter alia provided that any amount that may become due or payable by the first party to the second party under any part of the agreement shall be deemed to be and will be recovered from the first party as if they are arrears of land revenue and the Supreme Court held that the terms of Clause 12 of the agreement do not have scope for liberal construction being made so as to confer power on the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate upon disputed questions of breach as well as to assess the damages arising from the breach. The Supreme Court further held that the officers of the State Government which is a party to the agreement, cannot be an arbiter in his own cause and interest of justice and equity require that where a party to a contract disputes the committing of any breach of conditions, the adjudication should be by an independent person or body and not by the other party to the contract.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Dharamdas Nechlani S/O Shri Govind Ram vs The State Govt. Of M.P. Through The ... on 17 August, 2007

In this case we are not considering the question whether the respondent was entitled to issue RRC or not as it has already been decided by Division Bench in Seth Mohanlal Hiralal v. State of M.P. and Anr. 2001(5) MPHT 539 that if adjudication by authority under agreement is in favour of Government, it need not prefer claim before Tribunal and the State has independent right to recover the amount found due from the contractor under the terms of contract agreement. The aforesaid legal position is not disputed in the present case and we are not considering the question as to the authority of respondent to issue RRC. As the respondent has lodged counter claim in the reference petition, thus the question of limitation as envisaged under Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam and provisions of Section 7 shall apply and the case of respondent is examined in that perspective.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

B.B. Verma And Anr. vs The State Of M.P. And Anr. on 28 March, 2006

It is clear that any claim against the contractor for payment of any sum of money which arises under the contract, Government is entitled to recover. It was not necessary for the respondents to approach the Arbitration Tribunal under Section 7 of Adhiniyam. A Division Bench or this Court in Seth Mohanlal Hiralal v. State of M.P.and Anr. 2001 (5) MPHT 539 has laid down thus :
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document

Narmada Enterprises vs Managing Director Food Corporation ... on 2 April, 2014

In the two decisions of the Division Bench in Ch. Chandra Shekhar v. State of M.P. and Ors. and Seth Mohanlal Hiralal v. State of M.P. and Anr. (supra), there is also no reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Rameshwar Rice Mills Thirthahalli (supra), in which Clause 12 of the agreement with the State of Mysore and a private person for purchase of paddy under the Paddy Procurement Scheme, 1959 inter alia provided that any amount that may become due or payable by the first party to the second party under any part of the agreement shall be deemed to be and will be recovered from the first party as if they are arrears of land revenue and the Supreme Court held that the terms of Clause 12 of the agreement do not have scope for liberal construction being made so as to confer power on the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate upon disputed questions of breach as well as to assess the damages arising from the breach.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1