Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Prem Chand Gupta on 17 July, 2017

Vinod Kumar vs Union Of India on 30 September, 2021

43. In the instant case, admittedly, the Tribunal has denoted in its finding that the fault lies on the part of the respondent but in view of the prohibitory clauses in the contract agreement, the Tribunal was right in not awarding the interest for the pre litiga- tive period and interest pendente lite. The case of North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs. Prem Chand Gupta referred by the petitioner decided by Delhi High Court on 17.07.2017, is prior to the case of Sri Chittarnjan Maity Vs. UOI (supra) decided by the Supreme Court on 03.10.2017. So in view of the settled OMP Comm No. 84/2020 Page No.40 of 43 proposition of law, the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on this Court.
Delhi District Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Chief Engineer/Cn/South/Ms vs M/S.Rail One Projects Pvt. Ltd on 11 June, 2019

Similarly, the Interest Act also will have to be taken as the one in operation without violating the provisions of the Arbitration Act. It is well settled that even a right created under the statute can be waived by agreement. http://www.judis.nic.in 6 Thus, the payment of interest having been waived by accepting the terms and conditions cannot be agitated for the first time before the Tribunal. After all, the role of the Tribunal is to adjudicate the right of the parties under the contract and in order to set at naught its provisions, the other decisions viz., CWHEC-HCIL (JV) v. CHPRCL (CDJ 2017 DHC 640); S.K. SHARMA v. CHANDER PRAKASH ARORA (CDJ 2012 DHC 2017); VENTURE GLOBAL ENGINEERING v. SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. (CDJ 2010 Supreme Court 693); P. GOPIRATHNAM v. FERRODOUS ESTATE (PVT) LTD., REP., BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI G. JOHN ARTHUR(CDJ 1999 MHC 502); NHAI v. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD., (CDJ 2017 DHC 540); NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. PREMCHAND GUPTA (AIR 2017 DELHI 171) and KAUSHAL KISHORE MISHRA v. STATE OF U.P., (CDJ 2018 ALL HC 020) relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent also are of no help.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

The Deputy Chief Engineer vs M/S.V.Sathyamoorthy & Co on 26 August, 2019

Similarly, the Interest Act also will have to be taken as the one in operation without violating the provisions of the Arbitration Act. It is well settled that even a right created under the statute can be waived by agreement. Thus, the payment of interest having been waived by accepting the terms and conditions cannot be agitated for the first time before the Tribunal. After all, the role of the Tribunal is to adjudicate the right of the parties under the contract and in order to set at naught its provisions, the other decisions viz., CWHEC-HCIL (JV) v. CHPRCL (CDJ 2017 DHC 640); S.K. SHARMA v. CHANDER PRAKASH ARORA (CDJ 2012 DHC 2017); VENTURE GLOBAL ENGINEERING v. SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. (CDJ 2010 Supreme Court 693); P. GOPIRATHNAM v. FERRODOUS ESTATE (PVT) LTD., REP., BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI G. JOHN ARTHUR(CDJ 1999 MHC 502); NHAI v. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD., (CDJ 2017 DHC 540); NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. PREMCHAND GUPTA (AIR 2017 DELHI 171) and KAUSHAL KISHORE MISHRA v. STATE OF U.P., (CDJ 2018 ALL HC 020) relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent also are of no help.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

The Union Of India vs Best Cast Constructions (P) Ltd on 29 August, 2019

Similarly, the Interest Act also will have to be taken as the one in operation without violating the provisions of the Arbitration Act. It is well settled that even a right created under the statute can be waived by agreement. Thus, the payment of interest having been waived by accepting the terms and conditions cannot be agitated for the first time before the Tribunal. After all, the role of the Tribunal is to adjudicate the right of the parties under the contract and in order to set at naught its provisions, the other decisions viz., CWHEC-HCIL (JV) v. CHPRCL (CDJ 2017 DHC 640); S.K. SHARMA v. CHANDER PRAKASH ARORA (CDJ 2012 DHC 2017); VENTURE GLOBAL ENGINEERING v. SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD. (CDJ 2010 Supreme Court 693); P. GOPIRATHNAM v. FERRODOUS ESTATE (PVT) LTD., REP., BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI G.JOHN ARTHUR(CDJ 1999 MHC 502); NHAI v. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD., (CDJ 2017 DHC 540); NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. PREMCHAND GUPTA (AIR 2017 DELHI 171) and KAUSHAL KISHORE MISHRA v. STATE OF U.P., (CDJ 2018 ALL HC 020) http://www.judis.nic.in relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent also 5/10 are of no help.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - N S Kumar - Full Document

Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) vs M/S.Vishal Constructions on 2 February, 2018

Similarly, the Interest Act also will have to be taken as the one in operation without violating the provisions of the Arbitration Act. It is well settled that even a right created under the statute can be waived by agreement. Thus, the payment of interest having been waived by accepting the terms and conditions cannot be agitated for the first time before the Tribunal. After all, the role of the Tribunal is to adjudicate the right of the parties under the contract and in order to set at naught its provisions, the other decisions viz., M/S CWHEC-HCIL (JV) V. M/S CHPRCL (CDJ 2017 DHC 640); S.K.SHARMA V. CHANDER PRAKASH ARORA AND ANOTHER (CDJ 2012 DHC 2017); VENTURE GLOBAL ENGINEERING V. SATYAM COMPUTER SERVICES LTD., AND ANOTHER (CDJ 2010 Supreme Court 693); P.GOPIRATHNAM AND OTHERS V. FERRODOUS ESTATE (PVT) LTD., REP., BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI G.JOHN ARTHUR (CDJ 1999 MHC 502); NHAI V. M/S HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD., (CDJ 2017 DHC 540); NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION V. PREMCHAND GUPTA (AIR 2017 DELHI 171) and KAUSHAL KISHORE MISHRA V. STATE OF U.P., (CDJ 2018 ALL HC 020) relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent also are of no help.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 9 - M M Sundresh - Full Document
1