Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Gujarat Housing Board, Ahmedabad vs Harilal Jethalal on 1 February, 2001

Chief Secretary vs Kothari And Associates on 30 July, 2003

6.7J We have also considered the question of limitation in this behalf and in this case we have relied on the Division Bench judgment as well as judgment of Justice P.D. Desai. So far as Ukai formula was concerned, the same was applicable for the payment of the rise is prices of labour and petroleum and in principle was accepted by the Government, and therefore, the learned Judge was right in accepting the said formula. We have also considered that the books of accounts were kept as required in the regular course of business and even the claim is established on the basis of Section 73 of the Contract Act and on which detailed reasoning is given by the trial Court. We fully agree with the same. As regards limitation, the defendant had taken the contention which was not raised before the trial Court and the point of limitation being a mix question of facts and law, cannot now be adjudicated. However, even if the same can be adjudicated, we have relied on the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Hasmukh Construction Co. (supra) and Gujarat Housing Board v. Harilal Jethalal (supra) and judgment of single Judge (Coram : P.D. Desai, J., (as he was then)) in the case of Virchand Sakalchand & Co. v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission (supra) and the present suit is based on breaches committed by the appellant i.e. successive breaches and the suit is filed from the last breach committed and not based on each cause of action. Even otherwise, the suit is filed from the date of return of security deposit which deposit was released on 27-1-1982 i.e. last payment of work done. The suit has been filed on 25-1-1985 i.e. within the period of three years from the last payment. Therefore, the suit is only within the period of limitation.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - D K Trivedi - Full Document

Gujarat Housing Board vs Chetas Corp on 21 April, 2022

"7.4 The Board is by section 74 of the Act, inter alia, empowered to make Regulations for regulating its procedure and disposal of business and under section 75, it Page 18 of 24 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:19:03 IST 2022 C/FA/3869/1995 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2022 has power to make byelaws for carrying out its duties and functions under the Act. The Board is bound to comply with the directions of the State Government, as laid down under section 82 of the Act. The Bombay Housing Board, in the conduct of its business, provided in its regulations framed u/s 67[d], a copy of which is at exh. 134, at clause 9 that the Housing Commissioner, Assistant Housing Commissioner, Chief Accounts Officer, Executive Engineer and Estate Manager of the Bombay Housing Board shall exercise respectively the powers as specified in Appendix `i' thereto. Item 7 of Appendix `i' refers to Rule 185 Srl. No. 24 of the Rules of financial powers and delegates powers to execute deeds, contracts and other instruments subject to limit fixed by the Board, to the Housing Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Executive Engineer and Chief Accountants. Under Rule 6 (5) of the above Rules, the Board was required to follow, as far as possible, the principles laid down in the Bombay P. W. D. Manual. This delegation to the officers including Executive Engineers was subsequently continued as reflected from Part III Item 25 of the Circular dated 17th November 1980 at exh. 141, which refers to the revised delegation of powers under the Government Resolution dated 30th September 1980. The Executive Engineer was thus duly authorised by the Board to sign the contract on behalf of the Board. In fact, the authority of the Executive Engineer to sign the documents on behalf of the Board was not challenged on the ground that the Executive Engineer was not delegated such powers, but the challenge of the respondent in para 16 of the plaint was that the Chairman alone can sign the contract and the power could not have been delegated to the Executive Engineer. As noted above, the statutorily prescribed manner and form of contract did not require the Page 19 of 24 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:19:03 IST 2022 C/FA/3869/1995 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2022 chairman himself to sign the contract when the contract is made by him for the Board and the only requirement was that it should be in writing and be sealed in the manner prescribed by Rule 6, which was duly satisfied in this case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Guj Housing Board vs United Consturction Co on 4 October, 2023

[7.1] Considering the judgment rendered by this Court in First Appeal No.3869 of 1995 to 3873 of 1995 filed by the Gujarat Housing Board, raising very same issue possibly by the same trial Court in connection with contracts for construction of different tenements for different income group wherein also trial Court determined the maintainability of the suit as preliminary issue on the ground that Chairman of the Board alone is empowered under Section 21 of 'the Act' to execute the contract, and therefore, dismissed the suit involved in the said group of Appeals on suit contracts being held to be void ab intio, this Court after considering the decision in the case of Harilal Jethalal (Supra) wherein also Executive Engineer had signed the suit contract allowed the Appeal as Executive Engineer is delegated powers to execute the contract as recorded in paragraph no.7.4 of the decision in the case of Harilal Jethalal (Supra) referred to by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Appeals in RE POINT No.2 quoting Page 16 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 07 20:38:03 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1805/1994 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/10/2023 undefined whole paragraph thereof, we are unable to take a different view than the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid group of Appeals, that too, filed by very plaintiff -Gujarat Housing Board. The only point of difference in the present case is the evidence was recorded and instead of answering the suit on all the issues framed, suit came to be disposed of on the ground of authority of the Executive Engineer to sign the suit contract in view of Section 21 of 'the Act' and it is held to be not maintainable, and therefore, this Court is left with no option but to remand the case directing the Court concerned to answer all the issues on merit, after getting file reconstructed and for the purpose, both the parties are directed to cooperate and see that whole case is reconstructed before the Court and they are further directed to produce the documents as per the exhibits agreed upon inter se, which may facilitate the Court to pronounce the judgment.
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - U A Trivedi - Full Document
1