Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 56 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
10. The law on this subject has already been crystallised in the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in ASSOCIATE BUILDERS V. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ((2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 49).
Fateh Chand vs Balkishan Das on 15 January, 1963
(2)In FATEH CHAND V. BALKISHAN DASS (AIR (1963) Supreme Court 1405), it has been observed as follows:
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta And Sons, Ltd vs The Century Spinning And Manufacturing ... on 5 March, 1962
1.SIR CHUNILAL V. MEHTA & SONS lTD V. THE CENTURY SPINNING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED (AIR 1962 Supreme Court, 1314);
Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Gupta Brother Steel Tubes Ltd on 9 September, 2009
This will not take away the right of the A from claiming damages or otherwise for its positive act in demolishing the building and thus, incurring loss. Thus, the loss being the one not foreseen intended and envisaged under the contract, the restrictive clause providing for liquidated damages would not bar a relief. After all a tort- feasor has to make good the loss suffered by the others. The position of law has been dealt with in extenso in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., V. GUPTA BROTHER STEEL TUBES LTD., ((2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 63), wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
(1) In OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED V. SAW PIPES LTD., ((2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 705), it has been held as follows:
Phulchand Exports Ltd vs Ooo Patriot on 12 October, 2011
This landmark declaration of law still holds the field. When the parties have agreed as in this case for payment of damages as stipulated by them the same becomes payable. This principle laid down in this case has been applied in several subsequent cases before the Supreme Court, including the one reported in PHULCHAND EXPORTS LTD., V. OOO PATRIOT (2011 (10) Supreme Court Cases 300). Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act has been held to enable the party aggrieved to claim that much and does not entitle such person to straight away get the stipulated amount and what is rally guaranteed is only a reasonable sum not exceeding the stipulated sum. The Court has been held to have the power and even obligated to adjudge the reasonable compensation in each case on the merits of the claim made.