Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.65 seconds)State Of Andhra Pradesh vs M/S. Associated Engineering ... on 24 March, 1989
"Relying on this provision in the Agreement, the claim for compensation or escalation or payment of extra amount over and above the contracted rates was negatived by this court atleast in three decisions. (Vide State of A.P. v. Associated Engineering Enterprises (supra), CMA No. 786/86 dated 1.12.1988 and CMA No. 998/84 dated 19.8.1989). The last decision was a case in which the claim was made for extra payment on account of escalation of costs for the work done beyond the agreement period. One of the grounds alleged by the contractor was delay in handing over the site free of crops. The other grounds pleaded were found to be totally irrelevant. The learned Judges, relying, inter alia, on P.S. 59 of APDSS, rejected the claim. The claims of the contractor in the present case is still worse. He wants escalation over and above the agreed rates even during the currency of the agreement period."
Ch. Ramalinga Reddy vs Superintending Engineer And Anr on 2 December, 1994
The second point of distinction noted in Ramalinga Reddy's case (supra) has also no application here as the appellant did not at anytime notify the respondent that the work had to be done during the extended period of contract without claiming any compensation. In fact, the appellants themselves allowed the extra rate for 1984 season. The appellant never informed the respondent contractor that the payment over and above 1984-85 S.S.R. rates or any other compensation was not payable to him. On the other hand, it is apparent from the award and the documents mentioned therein that the respondent was throughout claiming compensation extra payment for the loss suffered by him for the work that had to be undertaken beyond the contractual period.
A.T. Brij Paul Singh And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat on 25 July, 1984
In M/s. A. T. Brij Paul Singh and others v. State of Gujarat , the Supreme Court upheld the award of damages under the head 'loss of profit'. The Supreme Court held :
Prasad & Co. vs The Superintending Engineer And Ors. on 5 July, 1995
In a recent case i.e., Prasad & Company v. Superintending Engineer (I.C.) (1995 (3) ACT 537), after reviewing the case law on the subject, we held that Clause 59 creates a bar against the claim for compensation atleast during the stipulated period of the contract. We observed thus :
Union Of India vs A.L. Rallia Ram on 19 April, 1963
18. The learned Government Pleader contended that the amount awarded under Head 'B' represents interest calculated from the date of notice (Ex. C-30) and it amounts to awarding interest by way of damages which is not permissible in law as per the decisions of the Supreme Court in U.O.I. v. Ralla Ram , and UOI v. Watkins Mayor & Co. .
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Watkins Mayor And Co. on 10 March, 1965
18. The learned Government Pleader contended that the amount awarded under Head 'B' represents interest calculated from the date of notice (Ex. C-30) and it amounts to awarding interest by way of damages which is not permissible in law as per the decisions of the Supreme Court in U.O.I. v. Ralla Ram , and UOI v. Watkins Mayor & Co. .
Durga Ram Prasad vs Govt. Of A.P on 23 November, 1994
It is also contended relying on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Durga Ram Prasad v. Govt. of A.P. , that interest for the period prior to making the award is not admissible in view of the prohibition contained in Clause 69 of A.P.D.S.S. In that case, the Supreme Court laid down the principle that until the dispute is settled by the arbitrator, it cannot be said that any amount is due and therefore no interest is payable. We find no merit in these contentions. What is awarded under Head 'B' is a lump sum amount called by the arbitrator as "opportunity cost of the capital blocked". If interest was added to the specific amounts due to the contractor, that was only as a measure of ascertaining the compensation or loss sustained by the contractor and it does not necessarily amount to awarding interest either by way of damages or otherwise.
Union Of India vs H. S. Dhillon on 21 October, 1971
The distinction between the award of interest by way of damages and the calculation of interest as a measure of ascertaining the damages was highlighted by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. S.S.H. Syndicate . Just as in that case, here also the specific amount due to the contractor for the work done by him or in the form of deposits and refundable amounts got blocked up with the Government and in order to assess the losses suffered by the contractor on this account, there is no objection in applying the yardstick of interest, even assuming such yard stick was applied by the arbitrator. The learned Government Pleader submits that the contractor himself had sought for payment of interest at 24% under Head 'B', but that is only partly correct. The contractor used various alternative words as compensation/damages/Interest and the arbitrator did not say in specific terms that what was awarded under Head 'B' represented interest payable for the main claims. We, therefore, see no room for the application of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions cited by the learned Government Pleader.