Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 423 (2.50 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Ors vs Tantia Construction Pvt.Ltd on 18 April, 2011

M/S Birendra Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 11 February, 2021

8. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner with reference to the judgment of the Apex Court in ABL International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India & Ors, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 and the Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 697 that arbitrary action of termination of contract is amenable to jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - A K Upadhyay - Full Document

M/S Eci-Spic-Smo-Mcml (Jv) vs Central Organisation For Railway ... on 28 November, 2017

22. The judgment in Union of India and others Vs. Tantia Construction (supra) has no application in the present case for the reason that it is a case decided on its own facts. There was an agreement between Railway and Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor"). Railway insisted upon Contractor to execute certain additional work worth Rs. 36.11 crores under existing agreement for which Contractor did not agree. Railway then issued a notice requiring Contractor to execute enlarged/ extended quantity of work contract which was challenged in writ petition stating that Contractor is ready and abide to work contract already executed and it cannot be forced to agree for additional work in respect of extended portion on same terms and conditions. Contractor in writ petition did not challenge terms and conditions of existing agreement but was aggrieved by action of railway whereby it was compelling Contractor to execute extended quantify of work contract/ additional work contract for which Contractor was not ready. Single Judge of Calcutta High Court quashed letter issued by railway for additional/ extended work contract and said judgment was upheld by Division Bench as well as Apex Court. Court observed that Contractor expressed its unwillingness to take extended work and agreed to complete balance work of initial contract and for extended work he cannot be compelled. It is these facts and circumstances Court did find that writ petition was maintainable. The aforesaid judgment, therefore, has no application for the reason that here dispute relates to agreement which petitioner has not been able to complete within the period agreed upon between parties. It is also true and admitted by petitioner that in presenti, extended period is only upto 31.12.2017 but as per reply submitted by petitioner dated 20.10.2017, there are certain work which petitioner claims that same can be completed by March, 2018 though period of completion of agreement is only upto 31.12.2017. Whether delay in execution of work is attributable to petitioner or respondents involves investigation into seriously disputed facts for which remedy is available to petitioner in arbitration clause in agreement existence whereof is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ncc-Ivrcl-Smc(Jv), A Joint Venture ... vs Counsel For The on 13 August, 2012

12) The judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tantia Construction (P) Ltd. relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant can be distinguished on facts. In the said case, the offer letter did not cover the extended work on account of alteration of the design and was confined to the work originally contracted for. However, the respondent company was expected to complete the entire work which comprised both the work covered under the initial tender and the extended work covered by the second tender. The respondent company had expressed its unwillingness to take up the extended work and it agreed to complete the balance work of the initial contract at the same rates as quoted earlier despite the fact that a long time had elapsed between the awarding of the contract and the actual execution thereof. By the second tender, the entire design of the rail over-bridge was altered converting the same into a completely new project. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the provisions relating to the arbitration clause contained in the agreement, the High Court was fully within its competence to entertain and dispose of the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent Company.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Mvv Satyanarayana Through Its ... vs The General Manager Central Railway And ... on 27 March, 2026

The principle laid down in Tantia Construction (supra) that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction is a rule of discretion, and in the exercise of that discretion, having regard to the nature of the dispute, the adequacy of the alternative remedy, and the essentially factual character of the controversy, we decline to entertain this petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V V Kankanwadi - Full Document

M/S Sewkranthi Jv vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 24 March, 2023

11. Taking into consideration all the above referred facts and circumstances and the evident intent and objectives of the parties to choose a specific form of dispute resolution to manage conflicts between them and interim orders of this Court dt. 04.10.2021 in W.P.No.24761 of 2021, which observed the fact that the Learned Addl. Advocate General, on instructions submitted to the Court that since there is an Arbitration Clause and it is arbitral dispute the Petitioner has to invoke the same, without going into the merits of the claim and counter claim of the parties on all the issues involved in the present case and without even expressing any opinion on the same and further taking into consideration Clause 3, Sub-clause (ii) of G.O.Ms.No.6, dt. 17.03.2022 and duly considering the observations of the Apex Court in judgement reported in (2014) 5 SCC 1 in Emercon (India) Ltd., V. Emercon GmbH and also the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2022) 9 SCC 691 in Puna vs. Samarth Builders and Developers and Another and also the judgement of the Apex Court reported in (1986) 2 SCC wp_20309_2021 28 SN,J 679 in Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and Another v. K.S. Jangannathan and Another, Unitech Limited and others v Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and others reported in 2021 SCC online SC 99 dated 17.02.2021 and Union of India and others v Tantia Construction Private Limited, dated 18.04.2011 reported in 2011(5) SCC 697 (extracted above) the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to discuss with the Petitioner who is the counterparty to the agreement dt. 20.01.2010 entered into by and between the petitioner and Respondents duly applying Clause 3 Sub-Clause 2 of G.O.Ms.No.6, dt. 17.03.2022 and bring about a suitable amendment to designate International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC) Hyderabad as the Arbitral Mediation Institution to utilize the services of the IAMCH for conducting their arbitration relating to all the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents herein arising out of Contract vide agreement No. AB No. SE/JCR/DLIS/ WGL/EPC/05/2009-10 dated 20.01.2010, within a period wp_20309_2021 29 SN,J of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Telangana High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - S Nanda - Full Document

M/S Sewkranthi Jv vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others on 24 March, 2023

11. Taking into consideration all the above referred facts and circumstances and the evident intent and objectives of the parties to choose a specific form of dispute resolution to manage conflicts between them and interim orders of this Court dt. 04.10.2021 in W.P.No.24761 of 2021, which observed the fact that the Learned Addl. Advocate General, on instructions submitted to the Court that since there is an Arbitration Clause and it is arbitral dispute the Petitioner has to invoke the same, without going into the merits of the claim and counter claim of the parties on all the issues involved in the present case and without even expressing any opinion on the same and further taking into consideration Clause 3, Sub-clause (ii) of G.O.Ms.No.6, dt. 17.03.2022 and duly considering the observations of the Apex Court in judgement reported in (2014) 5 SCC 1 in Emercon (India) Ltd., V. Emercon GmbH and also the judgment of the Apex Court wp_18129_2021 28 SN,J reported in (2022) 9 SCC 691 in Puna vs. Samarth Builders and Developers and Another and also the judgement of the Apex Court reported in (1986) 2 SCC 679 in Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and Another v. K.S. Jangannathan and Another, Unitech Limited and others v Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and others reported in 2021 SCC online SC 99 dated 17.02.2021 and Union of India and others v Tantia Construction Private Limited, dated 18.04.2011 reported in 2011(5) SCC 697 (extracted above) the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to discuss with the Petitioner who is the counterparty to the agreement dt. 20.01.2010 entered into by and between the petitioner and Respondents duly applying Clause 3 Sub-Clause 2 of G.O.Ms.No.6, dt. 17.03.2022 and bring about a suitable amendment to designate International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC) Hyderabad as the Arbitral Mediation Institution to utilize the services of the IAMCH for conducting their arbitration relating to all the disputes between the wp_18129_2021 29 SN,J petitioner and the respondents herein arising out of Contract vide agreement No. AB No. SE/JCR/DLIS/ WGL/EPC/05/2009-10 dated 20.01.2010, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S Nanda - Full Document

Madhu Transport Company Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 29 June, 2015

In Union of India and Ors. v. Tantia Construction Private Limited; (2011) 5 SCC 697, the question which had arisen for adjudication before the apex court was with regard to the contractual obligation and specific relief on account of termination and discharge of contract between UOI and Tantia Construction Private Limited. This case also involved an agreement between the Railways and private parties. One of the arguments which was taken up before the Apex Court was that the agreement between the parties provided for adjudication through arbitration in respect of all the disputes and differences of any kind arising between the parties out of or in connection with the contract whether during the progress of work or after its completion and whether before or after the termination of the contract, the same could be adjudicated by the arbitrator. Nullifying this submission, the Apex Court observed in para 33 and 34 as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V K Shali - Full Document

Mr. K. L. Gugnani vs Asf Insignia Sez Pvt Ltd on 3 March, 2021

In the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Tantia Construction Pvt Ltd (supra), the respondent had refused to take up the construction of the extended viaduct, which was not covered in the original agreement, which made the appellant float a separate tender. The respondent however had offered to execute varied quantity of work in respect of the balance work left over from the contract due to variation in design. Later, the appellant insisted that the respondent should carry out the entire work including the additional work of the viaduct. When the respondent OMP (Comm) No. 615/2018 & ARBT No. 4620/2018 Page No. 57 of 91 refused, the appellant terminated the contract and decided to re-tender the entire block at the risk and cost of the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the termination of the contract in releation to original tender on the basis of the said supposition was unjustified.
Delhi District Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Seabird vs Board

In Union of India and others v. Tantia Construction Private Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has held that it is now well established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the invocation of the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court and that without exhausting such alternative remedy, a writ petition would not be maintainable. The court held that the constitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the authorities. Injustice, whenever and wherever it takes place, has to be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next