Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)
Shiv Kumar Wasal & Co vs Delhi Development Authority on 14 February, 2017 cites

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Rakesh Brothers on 28 April, 2005

Regarding contention of the respondents that after expiry of supplementary agreement, no renewal of the agreement was done is factually incorrect, because the time was extended with mutual consent of the claimants were required to continue with watch and ward and to execute the balance items of works till handing over possession of flats. Therefore, there was implied extension of time. Further the contention of the respondents that there is no adequate evidence of pay slip, attendance register etc. is totally FAO(OS) 43/2016&51/2016 Page 5 of 11 misconceived because the respondents themselves agreed to pay Rs. 10,736/- per month, as such, contention of the respondents is liable to be rejected including the judgment in the case of MCD versus Rakesh Brothers is liable to be rejected.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 13 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

G.D.Bhutani & Co. vs Dda & Ors. on 11 September, 2009

The respondents stated that there is no provision in the agreement for making payment for watch &ward after completion of the work, The claimants withdraw this claim vide their letter No. SKWC/336 MIG Narela/99-00 dated 26-6-1999 (annexure D). The respondents further submitted that no renewal of supplementary agreement was done and therefore the claimants are not entitled to the claim. Moreover, the claimants did not file any evidence of pay slip, attendance register etc. The respondents also relied on the judgement in the case of MCD V/s Rakesh Bros, 2005 (2) RAJ 17 Delhi in this regard. It is significant to provide for documentary evidence in respect of such watch and ward. The claimants on this account holds no legal merit in the absence of adequate evidence. The respondents also rely on the case in the matter of G,D, Bhutani versus DDA vide which the Hon'ble High Court has held that in the absence of any wage register, no presumption can be drawn FAO(OS) 43/2016&51/2016 Page 4 of 11 that the contractor had really paid wages to the workforce as wages on this workforce had been employed at site.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - S N Dhingra - Full Document
1