Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. & Ors vs Partha Sarathi Sen Roy & Ors on 20 February, 2013
Ltd. Vs. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy referred to supra, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court had held that such unconscionable clauses will
have to be read down or struck down as violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. No doubt, the Arbitrator is a creation of
a contract between the parties and he is bound by the contract
between the parties.
Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
K.N. Sathyapalan (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 30 November, 2006
19. Contractor has referred to judgments in
K.N. Sathyapalan v. State of Kerala2, Asian Techs Ltd. v.
Union of India3, Bharat Drilling v. State of Jharkhand4 and
Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of
India5 to contend that even though Clause 4.4 of the
Contract and Clauses 2.2 and 8.3 of GCC prohibit the
payment of monetary compensation in the cases of EOT
however, the Contractor could still claim compensation
under Section 73 of the Contract Act, in the event of
breach of contract-which the DMRC did by not handing
over the sites to the Contractor by the promised time.
M/S. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) ... vs Union Of India on 23 February, 2010
19. Contractor has referred to judgments in
K.N. Sathyapalan v. State of Kerala2, Asian Techs Ltd. v.
Union of India3, Bharat Drilling v. State of Jharkhand4 and
Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of
India5 to contend that even though Clause 4.4 of the
Contract and Clauses 2.2 and 8.3 of GCC prohibit the
payment of monetary compensation in the cases of EOT
however, the Contractor could still claim compensation
under Section 73 of the Contract Act, in the event of
breach of contract-which the DMRC did by not handing
over the sites to the Contractor by the promised time.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Messrs. P.M. Patel & Sons And Others, Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc on 25 September, 1985
32. Similar question arose before the three Judge Bench of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Assam State Electricity Board
and others Vs. Buildworth Private Limited reported in (2017) 8
SCC 146, wherein, the Court after referring to the judgment of
P.M.Paul Vs. Union of India, reported in 1989 Supp (1) SCC
368, concluded that escalation is a normal routine incident arising
out of gap of time and the same will have to be granted even if
14/23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/12/2025 06:11:35 pm )
Arbitration Original Petition (Com.Div.) No.137 of 2021
there is a prohibition.
M/S. Asian Techs Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 September, 2009
19. Contractor has referred to judgments in
K.N. Sathyapalan v. State of Kerala2, Asian Techs Ltd. v.
Union of India3, Bharat Drilling v. State of Jharkhand4 and
Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of
India5 to contend that even though Clause 4.4 of the
Contract and Clauses 2.2 and 8.3 of GCC prohibit the
payment of monetary compensation in the cases of EOT
however, the Contractor could still claim compensation
under Section 73 of the Contract Act, in the event of
breach of contract-which the DMRC did by not handing
over the sites to the Contractor by the promised time.