Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 201 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing A.T. Brij Paul Singh And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat on 25 July, 1984

M/S.State Industries Promotion vs M/S.Rpp Infra Projects Limited

33.In the case in hand, the learned Arbitrator was only assessing the loss of profit and not loss of profitability. While determining the same, the learned Arbitrator has taken note of the Standard Data Book published by the Ministry of Shipping and Transport and also the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of A.T. Brij Paul Singh and Others vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1984 4 SCC 59 and fixed 10% of the balance value of the work towards loss of profit. The learned Arbitrator has also taken into consideration the fact that the original contract was for a period of six months and the project was prolonged for more than five years and the learned Arbitrator has also assigned sufficient reasons as to why such delay is attributable to the petitioner. Those reasonings do suffer from any perversity or manifest illegality.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - N A Venkatesh - Full Document

M/S.State Industries Promotion vs M/S.Rpp Infra Projects Limited

33.In the case in hand, the learned Arbitrator was only assessing the loss of profit and not loss of profitability. While determining the same, the learned Arbitrator has taken note of the Standard Data Book published by the Ministry of Shipping and Transport and also the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of A.T. Brij Paul Singh and Others vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1984 4 SCC 59 and fixed 10% of the balance value of the work towards loss of profit. The learned Arbitrator has also taken into consideration the fact that the original contract was for a period of six months and the project was prolonged for more than five years and the learned Arbitrator has also assigned sufficient reasons as to why such delay is attributable to the petitioner. Those reasonings do suffer from any perversity or manifest illegality.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - N A Venkatesh - Full Document

M/S.State Industries Promotion vs M/S.Rpp Infra Projects Limited

33.In the case in hand, the learned Arbitrator was only assessing the loss of profit and not loss of profitability. While determining the same, the learned Arbitrator has taken note of the Standard Data Book published by the Ministry of Shipping and Transport and also the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of A.T. Brij Paul Singh and Others vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1984 4 SCC 59 and fixed 10% of the balance value of the work towards loss of profit. The learned Arbitrator has also taken into consideration the fact that the original contract was for a period of six months and the project was prolonged for more than five years and the learned Arbitrator has also assigned sufficient reasons as to why such delay is attributable to the petitioner. Those reasonings do suffer from any perversity or manifest illegality.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - N A Venkatesh - Full Document

M/S.State Industries Promotion vs M/S.Rpp Infra Projects Limited

33.In the case in hand, the learned Arbitrator was only assessing the loss of profit and not loss of profitability. While determining the same, the learned Arbitrator has taken note of the Standard Data Book published by the Ministry of Shipping and Transport and also the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of A.T. Brij Paul Singh and Others vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1984 4 SCC 59 and fixed 10% of the balance value of the work towards loss of profit. The learned Arbitrator has also taken into consideration the fact that the original contract was for a period of six months and the project was prolonged for more than five years and the learned Arbitrator has also assigned sufficient reasons as to why such delay is attributable to the petitioner. Those reasonings do suffer from any perversity or manifest illegality.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - N A Venkatesh - Full Document

The Commissioner, Solapur Municipal ... vs S. M. C. - G. E. C. P. Ltd (Joint Venture) on 6 February, 2026

__________________________________________________________________________ Page 46 of 56 06 February 2026 ::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2026 22:39:43 ::: Neeta Sawant CARBP-444 of 2024 xxx Such a finding of the appellate court appears to be based on wrong assumptions. The appellant had never claimed Rs. 20,000 on account of alleged actual loss suffered by him. He had preferred his claim on the ground that had he carried out the contract, he would have earned profit of 10% on Rs. 2 lakhs which was the value of the contract. This Court in A.T. Brij Paul Singh v. State of Gujarat [(1984) 4 SCC 59] while interpreting the provisions of Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872 has held that damages can be claimed by a contractor where the Government is proved to have committed breach by improperly rescinding the contract and for estimating the amount of damages, the court should make a broad evaluation instead of going into minute details. It was specifically held that where in the works contract, the party entrusting the work committed breach of contract, the contractor is entitled to claim the damages for loss of profit which he expected to earn by undertaking the works contract. Claim of expected profits is legally admissible on proof of the breach of contract by the erring party.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr.Janet Jeyapaul vs Dr.N.Sethuraman

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhim Singh case supra, has held that ''When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and 36/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21564 of 2021 imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free'' and awarded a compensation. The case of the petitioner was decided by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench of this Court set aside the reinstatement order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12676 of 2012. However, considering the loss of future employment and the ordeals meted out by the petitioner, awarded compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and the petitioner also received the amount from the respondent University without any protest. Therefore, the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will not apply to the case of the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

Slum Rehablitation Authority vs M. M. Project Consultants Pvt. Ltd on 16 June, 2020

The respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.990.52 lacs to MSK-appellant as loss for 28 (2011)10 SCC 573 pvr 151 sonawane-rng-rane-SRA-final.doc the period in question. A challenge to the award by the respondent-State of Rajasthan before the learned District Judge succeeded and the arbitral award was set aside. In an appeal before the High Court, the dcision and findings of the learned District Judge stood confirmed. It is in this context the Supreme Court was discussing the law on damages and also referring the decision in A.T. Brij Paul Singh And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat (supra) redirected adjudication on the point as framed in paragraph 50 of the judgment. However, in reaching to the conclusion some important observations as made by the Supreme Court are relevant in the context of the present proceedings which are required to be noted, which in fact support the case of the Petitioner which is also a public authority. The Supreme Court in paragraph 47 observed that, it is strange that a person who has not complied with terms of contract and has acted in contravention of the terms of agreement claims that he was entitled to earn more profit. It was observed that the respondent was not permitted to claim damages on compensation as he has not spent the said amount. It was also observed that the reliefs which are claimed by the appellant would prove to be a "windfall profit" without carrying out the obligation to execute the work just on technicalities. In paragraphs 47 and 49, the Court observed thus:-
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - G S Kulkarni - Full Document

Dr.Janet Jeyapaul vs Dr.N.Sethuraman

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhim Singh case supra, has held that ''When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free'' and awarded a compensation. The case of the petitioner was decided by the Division Bench of this Court as well as the 35/48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21564 of 2021 Hon'ble Supreme Court. After remand by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Division Bench of this Court set aside the reinstatement order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12676 of 2012. However, considering the loss of future employment and the ordeals meted out by the petitioner, awarded compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and the petitioner also received the amount from the respondent University without any protest. Therefore, the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will not apply to the case of the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next