Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 213 (2.14 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Orissa And Anr vs Damodar Das on 15 December, 1995

Vishnu (D)By Lrs vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 4 October, 2013

The words “any dispute” appears in clause 4 of the Work Order. Therefore, only on the basis of the materials produced by the parties in support of their respective claims a decision can be arrived at in resolving the dispute between the parties. The use of the words “any dispute” in clause 4 of the Work order is wide enough to include all disputes relating to the said Work Order. Therefore, when a party raises a dispute for non-payment of money after completion of the work, which is denied by the other party, such a dispute would come within the meaning of “arbitration agreement” between the parties. Clause 4 of the Work Order also clearly provides that any dispute between the department and the contractor shall be referred to the Superintending Engineer, Hydel Circle No.1, Chandigarh for orders. The word “orders” would indicate some expression of opinion, which is to be carried our, or enforced and which is a conclusion of a body (in this case Superintending engineer, Hydel Circle No.1, Chandigarh). Then again the conclusion and decision of the Superintending Engineer will be final and binding on both the parties. This being the position in the present case and in view of the fact that clause 4 of the Work Order is not under challenge before us, the decision that would be arrived at by Superintending Engineer, Hydel Circle No.1, Chandigarh must also be binding on the parties as a result whereof clause 4 must be held to be a binding arbitration agreement.” The Bench distinguished the judgment in State of Orissa v. Damodar Das (supra) by making the following observations:
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 37 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

M/S. P. Dasaratharama Reddy Complex vs Government Of Karnataka & Anr on 25 October, 2013

The words “any dispute” appears in clause 4 of the Work Order. Therefore, only on the basis of the materials produced by the parties in support of their respective claims a decision can be arrived at in resolving the dispute between the parties. The use of the words “any dispute” in clause 4 of the Work order is wide enough to include all disputes relating to the said Work Order. Therefore, when a party raises a dispute for non-payment of money after completion of the work, which is denied by the other party, such a dispute would come within the meaning of “arbitration agreement” between the parties. Clause 4 of the Work Order also clearly provides that any dispute between the department and the contractor shall be referred to the Superintending Engineer, Hydel Circle No.1, Chandigarh for orders. The word “orders” would indicate some expression of opinion, which is to be carried our, or enforced and which is a conclusion of a body (in this case Superintending engineer, Hydel Circle No.1, Chandigarh). Then again the conclusion and decision of the Superintending Engineer will be final and binding on both the parties. This being the position in the present case and in view of the fact that clause 4 of the Work Order is not under challenge before us, the decision that would be arrived at by Superintending Engineer, Hydel Circle No.1, Chandigarh must also be binding on the parties as a result whereof clause 4 must be held to be a binding arbitration agreement.” The Bench distinguished the judgment in State of Orissa v. Damodar Das (supra) by making the following observations:
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 33 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Smt. Bhagwan Devi vs The Chairman, Delhi Agricultural ... on 17 May, 2006

29. The decisions in the case of State of U.P. v. Tipper Chand (supra and Rukmanibai Gupta (supra have also been cited with approval by this Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Damodar Das . In this case, this Court considered a clause in the contract which made the decision of the Public Health Engineer, final, conclusive and binding in respect of all questions relating to the meaning of specifications, drawings, instructions ... or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing, whatsoever in any way arising out of, or relating to the contract, drawings, specifications, estimates ... or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same, whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or the sooner determination thereof of the contract. This Court held that this was not an arbitration clause. It did not envisage that any difference or dispute that may arise in execution of the works should be referred to the arbitration of an arbitrator.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 3 - S K Kaul - Full Document

M/S. R.P. Souza & Co. By Its Partners vs The Chief Engineer, P.W.D. & Others on 16 April, 1999

Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in matter of State of Orissa v. Sri Damodar Das (supra) as well as in the decision relied upon by the respondents, the cause of action for filing the application would not arise unless there is an assertion of claim by the applicants after the completion of the work and the cause of action for assertion of the claim cannot arise unless either final bill is prepared or the respondent disputes or denies the right of the applicant for the dues payable to the applicants in respect of the work done by the applicants for the respondents.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 7 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

State Of Bihar And Anr. vs Gobind Prasad Agrawal on 25 October, 2000

16. The judgments cited on behalf of the respondents noticed earlier are of no help to the respondent in view of subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd., (AIR 1999 SC 3275) (supra) in which some of the earlier judgments have been considered including the judgment in the case of State of Orissa v. Damodar Das on which emphasis was led on behalf of respondent on the ground that this is also a recent judgment and by three Judges. Moreover none of the judgments cited on behalf of the respondent take a different view of the established proposition of law that in a particular case a dispute has arisen or not has to be found out from the facts and circumstances of the case. In the facts of this case this Court finds that a dispute had arisen requiring reference on 10-12-1985 which fact is rather admitted in paragraph 5 of the plaint and hence the claim of the plaintiff/ contractor was on the face of it barred by period of limitation when he filed the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act on 10-4-1991.
Patna High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - S K Singh - Full Document

State Of Jharkhand vs M/S Sutlej Construction Limited ... on 12 October, 2018

Inder Singh Rekhi Vs. Delhi Development Authority" reported in (1988) 2 SCC 338, "State of Orissa and Another Vs. Damodar Das" reported in (1996) 2 SCC 216, "Hari Shankar Singhania and Others Vs. Gauri Hari Singhania and Others" reported in (2006) 4 SCC 658, "Punjab State and Others Vs. Dina Nath" reported in (2007) 5 SCC 28 and "Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited Vs. Prathyusha Resources and Infra Private Limited and Another" reported in (2016) 12 SCC 405, to contend that before a clear and unequivocal denial by the Department to make payment, there was no occasion for the claimant to invoke the arbitration clause and it was only on 13.04.2002, when a letter was written by the claimant which was replied by the Department vide letter dated 17.05.2002, the cause for arbitration arose [refer "State of Orissa and Another Vs. Damodar Das" reported in (1996) 2 SCC 216]. Observations in Inder Singh Rekhi : where the bill had not been finally prepared the claim made by a claimant is the accrual of the cause of action; Hari Shankar Singhania : where negotiations for settlement are pending the strict rights of the parties do not come into play, have been referred by the learned counsel for the claimant to emphasize that it was the correspondence between the parties from 23.03.1999 till 08.07.2002 through which the parties have staked their claims and, thus, there was no cessation of cause of action so as to hold that the claims were barred under the law of limitation. The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that the finding recorded by the learned Arbitrator at para 119 of the 30 award that the cause of action has continued is a finding of fact and, therefore, immune from review in an application either under Section 34 or under Section 37.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - S Chandrashekhar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next