cites: 1915298

6. Mr. Arya submitted that in view of the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry and State of Karnataka v. Rameshwar Rice Mills Thirthahalli (supra), the view taken by the Division Bench in the two decisions in Ch. Chandra Shekhar v. State of M.P. and Ors. and Seth Mohanlal Hiralal v. State of M.P. and Anr. (supra), that the State Government and its officers can recover the amount from the contractor as damages under Clause 4.3.38.1 of the agreement as arrear of revenue without decision by the S.E. and thereafter by the Tribunal under the Adhiniyam is not correct in law.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - A K Mishra - Full Document

6. Mr. Arya submitted that in view of the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry and State of Karnataka v. Rameshwar Rice Mills Thirthahalli (supra), the view taken by the Division Bench in the two decisions in Ch. Chandra Shekhar v. State of M.P. and Ors. and Seth Mohanlal Hiralal v. State of M.P. and Anr. (supra), that the State Government and its officers can recover the amount from the contractor as damages under Clause 4.3.38.1 of the agreement as arrear of revenue without decision by the S.E. and thereafter by the Tribunal under the Adhiniyam is not correct in law.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - A Mishra - Full Document

6. Mr. Arya submitted that in view of the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry and State of Karnataka v. Rameshwar Rice Mills Thirthahalli (supra), the view taken by the Division Bench in the two decisions in Ch. Chandra Shekhar v. State of M.P. and Ors. and Seth Mohanlal Hiralal v. State of M.P. and Anr. (supra), that the State Government and its officers can recover the amount from the contractor as damages under Clause 4.3.38.1 of the agreement as arrear of revenue without decision by the S.E. and thereafter by the Tribunal under the Adhiniyam is not correct in law.

Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 222 - O C Reddy - Full Document

6. Mr. Arya submitted that in view of the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry and State of Karnataka v. Rameshwar Rice Mills Thirthahalli (supra), the view taken by the Division Bench in the two decisions in Ch. Chandra Shekhar v. State of M.P. and Ors. and Seth Mohanlal Hiralal v. State of M.P. and Anr. (supra), that the State Government and its officers can recover the amount from the contractor as damages under Clause 4.3.38.1 of the agreement as arrear of revenue without decision by the S.E. and thereafter by the Tribunal under the Adhiniyam is not correct in law.

Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 380 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 2402

The Division Bench also found that in yet another decision in F.A. Construction, Mumbai v. Narmada Valley Development Department and Anr. 2006 (2) M.P.H.T. 216 a learned Single Judge placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kamataka v. Rameshwar Rice Mills Thirthahalli and Thakurdas Narang and Sons v. State of M.P. and Ors. (supra), had expressed the opinion that recovery of damages cannot be done without proper adjudication.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - D Misra - Full Document

Search Results Page