Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Kailash Nath And Associates vs Delhi Development Authority And Anr. on 10 September, 2007

Vale Australia Pty Limited vs Steel Authority Of India Limited & Anr. on 30 March, 2012

29. There were two specific submissions by Vale and AMCI in this regard. One was that by extending the time for performance of the contract SAIL had dispensed with requirement for timely performance of the contract. Reference was made to Sections 55 and 63 of the Contract Act by pointing out that there was no avoidance of the contract by SAIL, which in the circumstances was one option available to it. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Muhammad Habidullah v. Bird & Co. AIR 1922 Privy Council 178; Kailash Nath and Associates v. Delhi Development Authority 2007 (98) DRJ 9; Aryan Mining and Trading Corporation Ltd. v. B. N. Elias & Co. AIR 1959 Cal 472; Manni Lal v. Nihal Chand AIR 1930 Oudh 417; Shriram Pistons v. Buckeye Machines 136 (2007) DLT 254; Hind Construction v. State of Maharashtra (1979) 2 SCC 70 and Arosan Enterprises v. Union of India (1999) 9 SCC 449. Secondly, it is submitted O.M.P. 414/2011 with O.M.P. 415/2011 and O.M.P. 451/2011 Page 17 of 46 that Section 63 of the Contract Act does not require any bilateral agreement for dispensation of performance. It entitles a promisee to dispense with strict performance of the contract and the promisor would then not be held liable for non- performance of the original obligation.
Delhi High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 7 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

M/S Ajay Enterprises P. Ltd. & Anr. vs Mcd & Ors. on 6 May, 2009

19. The present case is also quite unlike the case of Kailash Nath (supra), where the defendant/DDA therein while continuing to enjoy the earnest money of the plaintiff, sold the disputed plot to a third party at three times of the price at which the plot was to be purchased by the plaintiff therein. In the said case, the Court also took note of the conduct of defendant/DDA in takings its own time in the decision making process and the exchange of communications with the parties, to ultimately hold that the plaintiff therein was entitled to refund of the earnest money.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - H Kohli - Full Document

Trinity Colonizers Pvt Ltd vs Dda on 18 November, 2011

7. As regards the reliance placed by the learned counsel for petitioner on a judgment of a Single Judge in the case of „Kailash Nath & Associates (M/S) vs. DDA & Anr.‟, reported as 2007 IX AD (DELHI) 137, the said judgment would not be of any assistance to the petitioner for the reason that though it dealt with a bid for sale of land, it was a decision rendered in respect of a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell filed against the respondent/DDA and in the alternative, for recovery of W.P.(C) 8034/2011 Page 4 of 6 damages with interest, where pleadings were completed, documents filed, issues framed and evidence led and only after examining the facts of the case, the Court came to the conclusion in the said case that having extended the time for making the payment, it would be deemed that the defendant/DDA had treated the contract as subsisting which is why it was at least required to issue a notice to the plaintiff therein to perform the agreement before terminating it. In the present case, vide letter dated 30.10.2009, the respondent/DDA duly put the petitioner to notice that failure to deposit the balance payment would result in forfeiture of the earnest money in terms of the conditions of auction. Despite the same, the petitioner failed to deposit the balance payment. Nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to indicate that the respondent/DDA had given an impression to it that it was treating the contract as subsisting. Thus the findings in the aforesaid judgment would not have any application to the present case. Furthermore, in the aforesaid case, the Court had pronounced the judgment in the context of the issues framed which were with regard to the entitlement of the plaintiff therein to the plot, for relief of specific performance and in the alternative, for recovery of damages. In the present case, the petitioner has not even bothered to take the aforesaid ground of there being a subsisting contract in its writ petition, which has been argued at length on two running dates and has culminated in the passing of the present order. The arguments urged today are quite apparently an afterthought and an attempt to W.P.(C) 8034/2011 Page 5 of 6 improve upon the petitioner‟s case, which cannot be permitted.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - H Kohli - Full Document
1