Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)
Sri Venkateswara Engineering ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., By Its ... on 6 October, 1993 cites

U.P. Co-Operative Federation Ltd vs Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd on 19 November, 1987

23. The learned Advocate General relied upon an unreported decision in A.A.O.No. 1450 of 1990 dated November 15, 1991. The appellant in C.M.A.Nos. 247 and 248 of 1992 is the appellant therein. He filed a suit O.S.No. 782 of 1990 for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encashing the bank guarantee. As the application for interim injunction was dismissed, the matter was carried in appeal before the High Court. A Division Bench of this Court found that the appellant had stopped the work on January 4,1990 and shifted the machinery on January 19, 1990. Therefore, the Bench came to the conclusion that the appellant has diverted the advance mobilisation loan for some other purpose and accordingly, dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant has neither prima facie case nor balance of convenience in his favour. The decision reported in U.P.C.F. Ltd v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd. (3 supra) and G.E.T. Services Company Inc. v. Punj Sons (P) Ltd. (4 supra), are also relied on in this case. In similar circumstances another Division Bench of this Court in A.A.O.No. 526 of 1992 dated 13-11-1992 considered the maintainability of the suit. For the purpose of bringing the suit within the jurisdiction of Subordinate Judge's Court, the suit value is shown as exceeding Rs. 50,000/- as in these cases. The Bench observed that "it is not comprehensible how the claims are not capable of definite valuation; it is a matter of common knowledge that before an arbitrator also, the claimant has to file a claim statement giving particulars of claims and the amount claimed under each claim", and finally held that the suit is not maintainable. We respectfully agree. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the suits are not maintainable and that applications for injunction restraining the defendants from invoking the bank guarantees are also not maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 469 - G L Oza - Full Document

Everest Co-Owners, A.B.C. vs M.P. State Ware Housing Corporation And ... on 13 October, 1992

If the Engineer fails to give notice of his decision in writing within a period of thirty days after being requested, or if the contractor is dissatisfied with the notice of decision of the Engineer, the Contractor may within thirty days after receiving the notice of decision appeal to the Employer who shall afford an opportunity to the contractor to be heard and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The Employer shall give notice of his decision within a period of thirty days after the contractor has given the said evidence in support of his appeal. subject to arbitration, as hereinafter provided, such decision of the Employer in respect of every matter so referred shall be final and binding upon the contractor and shall forthwith be given effect to by the contractor, who shall proceed with the execution of the works with all due diligence whether he requires arbitration, as hereinafter provided, or not. If the employer has given written notice of his decision to the Contractor and no claim to arbitration has been communicated to him by the contractor within a period of thirty days from receipt of such notice, the said decision shall remain final and binding upon the contractor. If the employer shall fail to give notice or his decision, as aforesaid, within a period of thirty days after being requested as aforesaid, or if the contractor be dissatisfied with any such decision, then and in any such case the contractor within thirty days after the expiration of the first-named period of thirty days, as the case may be, require that the matter or matters in dispute be referred to arbitration as hereinafter provided.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974

24. The learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on another decision reported in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, , submits that under Clause-41(b) of the Arbitration Act, the Court can grant interim injunction, pending the suit, when read with Rule-4 Schedule II. It is true in the said case, the Supreme Court has found that the Court has got power under Section 41(b) of the Act, to grant interim orders when the claim is pending adjudication, and accordingly, the appellant could be restrained from recovering monies by appropriating other amounts due to the respondent. But, in this case, we have already held that the suit itself is not maintainable, and the petition for injunction in such a suit, cannot be ordered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 380 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

State Of West Bengal vs Gaurangalal Chatterjee on 11 May, 1993

28. Coming to the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the State, Sri E. Manohar, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, submits that the appeals are not maintainable. He relies upon a decision reported in State of W.B. v. Gourangalal Chatterjee, . The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider identical question about the maintainability of appeals. Considering the language of Section 39(1) and (2) of the Arbitration Act, the Supreme Court held that appeals are not maintainable. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the appeals filed by the State are not maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 28 - R M Sahai - Full Document
1   2 Next