Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Air Foam Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 15 November, 1972

Gem Plastic Industries vs Union Of India on 5 May, 1976

In the decision of Avadh Behari, J. in M/s. Air Foam Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India: (supra), as confirmed in appeal by the Supreme Court, the respondents therein were relying upon clause 18 of the contract for their right to recover damages by appropriating "any sum then due or which at any time thereafter may become due to the contractor under the contract" or under any other contract. There is no such right being urged on behalf of the respondents. If an amount is due to the contractor on account of other bills, the payment thereof cannot be effected by such interlocutory injunction as prayed for. The contractor can recover it only by proceedings for recovery in appropriate forum where it would be decided whether the respondents are liable to pay such amounts to the contractor or not. In the result, ad interim order of Safeer, J. in the present case, is accordingly modified and it is ordered that the respondent non-applicants will be restrained from in any manner appropriating/adjusting or recovering the amount of the alleged claim of Rs. 75,530.00 from the other pending or future bills of the applicants till adjudication of the alleged claim by Arbitrator or by other appropriate proceedings before a court or till the decision of Omp 72 of 1975, whichever is earlier. There will be no order as to costs.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Y Dayal - Full Document

Pran Nath Gupta vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 July, 2003

13. As some doubt was raised in the Delhi High Court as to the exact scope of the ratio of the Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, AIR 1974 SC 1265 (supra) the matter was referred to a Full Bench apparently to reconsider the earlier Division Bench judgments in Marwar Tent Factory v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Delhi 27 and Air Foam Industries P. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 Delhi 253, The Full Bench in Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Delhi 248 took the view that though an injunction could be granted in those matters restraining the Union of India from adjusting or recovering any damages claimed by it from other pending bills of the contractor no order of injunction restraining the Union of India from withholding the payments due to the contractor under other pending bills could be issued.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - P Kohli - Full Document

Parmali Wallace Limited vs Union Of India on 29 May, 1998

"13. "As some doubt was raised in the Delhi High Court as to the exact scope of the ratio of the Union of India Vs. Raman Iron Foundry, , the matter was referred to a full Bench apparently to reconsider the earlier Division Bench judg-ments in Marwar Tent Factory Vs. Union of India, and M/s. Air Foam Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, . The full Bench in Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd.Vs. Union of India, took the view that though an injunction could be granted in those matters restraining the Union of India from adjusting or recovering any damages claimed by it from other pending bills of the contractor no order of injunction restraining the Union of India from withholding the payments due to the contractor under other pending bills could be issued."
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S N Kapoor - Full Document

Anand & Associates vs Delhi Development Authority on 2 June, 1997

(7) On behalf of plaintiff reliance has been placed on Uttam Singh Duggal & Company v. Union of India & Ors. 1990 (II) Arbitration Law Reporter 344, Maula Bux v. Union of India, , Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, , M/s. Air Foam Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, , State of Orissa and Ors. v. Calcutta Company Ltd., , and State of Gujarat v. Ms.M.K. Patel & Co. & Another, and Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act whereas on behalf of defendants reliance has been placed on M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., Ilr 1975 (II) Delhi 151 F.B., M/s. H.M.Kamaluddin Ansari & Company v. Union of India & Ors., , V. Narasimha Rao v. The Superintendent of Excise & Ors. Air 1974 A.P. 154 (FB) (8) The controversy centers round the scope of rights and powers emanating from Clauses 2, and 29 of the agreement between the parties in the light of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act. Clause 2 and Clause 29 and Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, so far as relevant read as under: "CLAUSE2 Cessation. The time allowed for carrying out the work as entered in the tender shall be strictly observed by the contractor and shall be deemed to be of the essence of the contract on the part of the contractor and shall be reckoned from the Tenth Day after the date on which the order to commence the work is issued to contractor. The work shall throughout the stipulated period of the contract be proceeded with all due diligence and the contractor shall pay as Compensation an amount equal to one per cent, or such smaller amount as the Superintending Engineer, Delhi Development Authority (whose decision in writing shall be final) may decide on the amount of the estimated cost of the whole work as shown in the tender, for everyday that the work remains uncommenced or unfinished, after the proper dates. And further, to and ensure good progress during the execution of the work, the contractor shall be bound in all cases in which the time allowed for any work exceed, one month (save for special jobs) to complete one-eight of the whole of the work before one fourth of the whole time allowed under the contract has elapsed, three-eight of the work, before one half of such time has elapsed and three-fourth of the work, before three-fourth of such time has elapsed. However, for special job if a time-schedule has been submitted by the Contractor and the same has been accepted by the Engineer-in-Charge the contractor shall comply with the said time-schedule. In the event of the contractor failing to comply with this condition, he shall be liable to pay as compensation an amount equal to one per cent or such smaller amount as the Superintending Engineer, Delhi Development Authority (whose decision in writing shall be final) may decide on the said estimated cost of the whole work for every day that the due quality of work remains incomplete, provided always that the entire amount of compensation to be paid under the provision of this clause shall not exceed ten per cent, on the estimated cost of the work as shown in the tender.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - J B Goel - Full Document

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. & Anr. vs Dpc Engineering Project Pvt. Ltd. on 13 October, 2011

"13. As some doubt was raised in the Delhi High Court as to the exact scope of the ratio of the Union of India Vs. Raman Iron Foundry, AIR 1974 SC 1265 (supra) the matter was referred to a Full Bench apparently to consider the earlier Division Bench judgments in Marwar Tent Factory Vs. Union of India, AIR 1975 Delhi 27 and Air Foam Industries P. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1973 Delhi 253.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - V J Mehta - Full Document

D.H. Gajjar And Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 26 July, 1979

7. Another case also is there, which was pressed into service by Mr. Sukhwani for the pentitioner-contractor. It is the case of M/s. Air Foam Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India . That case also is a case od an injunction issued under Section 41(b) of the Arbitation Act, 1949. In that case, the Delhi High Court on appreciation of all relevant factors and law allowed the application and had restrained the Union of India from effecting recovery of the amounts claimed to be due from the other pending bills of the petitioner there. In above view of the matter, the revision application is allowed. During the pendency and final disposal of the aforesaid suit, the respondent State is restrained from effecting recovery of the alleged claim of the defendant under the suit contract from the other pending bills of the plaintiff. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to costs. For the sake of clarity, it is stated that the injunction granted by this Court is not to be interpreted to mean that this Court has given a specific mandatory order to the State Government that it should pay up the remaining bills of the plaintiff. All that I have stated is that the State's counter-claim in this suit shall not be adjusted towards the other bills due to the plantiff firm and no more.
Gujarat High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1