Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Bihar vs Rama Bhushan Basu on 17 February, 1964

Sikka-N-Sikka Engineers Private Ltd. vs Cargo Transports on 22 January, 1992

In the instant case, as per Clause 16 of the contract, there is a time fixed for payment i.e., the amount has to be paid on the 46th day after the receipt of the bills from the plaintiff, Therefore, Article 18 is not applicable to the claim in question, as it Is not applicable to a case where time for payment is fixed in respect of the price payable for the work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request is also the view taken by a Division Bench of the High Court of Patna in STATE OF BIHAR v. RAMA BHUSHAN, AIR 1964 Patna 326. Hence we hold that Article 18 is not attracted to the claim in question.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Sadiq And Company on 11 February, 1992

6. The learned Counsel made a submission that Clause 8 of the tender agreement deals with payment. It lays down that the final bill is to be submitted within a month from the date specified for completion of the work and payment is to be made thereafter. This clause of contract fixes the time for payment. As such, Article 18 (new) has no application. The learned Counsel sought support from decisions in State of U.P. v. Chandra Gupta & Co., , State of Bihar v. Rama Bhushan Basu, A.I.R. 1964 Patna 326 and State of U.P. v. M/s. Thakur Kundan Singh, . These Authorities have considered the clause analogous to Clause 8 of the tender agreement and held that time is fixed for making the payment and hence, Article 18 has no application.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Tej Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 4 March, 1971

The State did not file any cross-appeal or cross-objection. But the learned Additional Government Advocate contends that the suit was barred by limitation and should have been dismissed. An issue was framed on the question of limitation (issue No. 7), The contention on behalf of the plaintiff was that Article 120 of the old Limitation Act was applicable and that on behalf of the State was that Article 56 was applicable. The plaintiff relied on the decision in State of Bihar v. Rama Bhushan A.I.R. 1964 Pat. 326. The trial court was of the opinion that Article 56 was not applicable because in the present case there was an agreement between the parties in regard to the work which was to be done and the method by which the payment was to be made. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on this question and we are of the opinion that Article 56 of the old Limitation Act is applicable. This article runs as follows:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1