Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Reliance Naval And Engineering Limited vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation on 30 November, 2018 cites

Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003

7] Mr. Bhatt, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that in view of the judgments of the Hon' ble Apex Court in the case of ABL International Ltd and another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd and others 1 and in the case of Union of India and others vs. Tantia Construction Private Limited 2, 1 (2004) 3 SCC 553 2 (2011) 5 SCC 697 3/8 ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:46:19 ::: (914) WP-1949-18.doc this Court can interfere if there is not much dispute on factual position. The learned Senior Counsel submits that, in the present case, from the conduct of the Respondent itself, it is clear that time was not an essence of the contract and that Respondent has extended the period from time to time for delivery of vessels. It is therefore submitted that five more vessels are almost ready and conduct of the Respondent in terminating the contract is unjust, requiring interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 1154 - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Tantia Construction Pvt.Ltd on 18 April, 2011

7] Mr. Bhatt, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that in view of the judgments of the Hon' ble Apex Court in the case of ABL International Ltd and another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd and others 1 and in the case of Union of India and others vs. Tantia Construction Private Limited 2, 1 (2004) 3 SCC 553 2 (2011) 5 SCC 697 3/8 ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 11:46:19 ::: (914) WP-1949-18.doc this Court can interfere if there is not much dispute on factual position. The learned Senior Counsel submits that, in the present case, from the conduct of the Respondent itself, it is clear that time was not an essence of the contract and that Respondent has extended the period from time to time for delivery of vessels. It is therefore submitted that five more vessels are almost ready and conduct of the Respondent in terminating the contract is unjust, requiring interference by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 319 - A Kabir - Full Document
1