Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
Gammon India Ltd & Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority on 18 April, 2017 cites

M.S.J. (Engineers) & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India And Others on 1 January, 1800

10. As rightly pointed out by GIL, if the work was not delayed GIL would have paid rent only for 18 months. With this DDA having granted licence for all the sections without compensation (except one specific period for Noida flyover where it levied compensation), the inevitable conclusion was that the delay was not attributable to GIL. At the time of bidding, GIL had considered the land rent for the period of contract. The excess rent payable for the period beyond the stipulated period was, OMP Nos 6/2009 & 674/2008 Page 4 of 13 therefore, liable to be refunded to GIL. This aspect of the matter seems to be completely overlooked by the learned Arbitrator. The recovery made from GIL was, therefore, clearly excessive. GIL was right in its contention that EoT is not a substitute for the right to cost compensation. This was explained by this Court in M.S.J. (Engineers) & Company Private Limited v. Union of India 60 (1995) DLT 705 wherein a reference was made to Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts (9th Edition, p.492) which set out the principles as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006

In fact in the impugned Award the learned Arbitrator notes that the work was delayed for 40 months and that DDA admitted that GIL was "bound to employ the minimum staff and to pay salary to such staff...." The conclusion in the impugned Award on this claim however is contrary to the law explained by the Supreme Court in McDermott International v. Burn Standard Co. Limited (2006) 11 SCC 181 and K.N. Sathyapalan (Dead) by LRs v. State of Kerala (2007) 13 SCC 43. The reason, therefore, for restricting the claim to only Rs.35,10,000 has no legal or factual basis. The Award to the extent it rejects Claim 1 (b) beyond Rs.35,10,000 is accordingly set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 1325 - S B Sinha - Full Document

K.N. Sathyapalan (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 30 November, 2006

In fact in the impugned Award the learned Arbitrator notes that the work was delayed for 40 months and that DDA admitted that GIL was "bound to employ the minimum staff and to pay salary to such staff...." The conclusion in the impugned Award on this claim however is contrary to the law explained by the Supreme Court in McDermott International v. Burn Standard Co. Limited (2006) 11 SCC 181 and K.N. Sathyapalan (Dead) by LRs v. State of Kerala (2007) 13 SCC 43. The reason, therefore, for restricting the claim to only Rs.35,10,000 has no legal or factual basis. The Award to the extent it rejects Claim 1 (b) beyond Rs.35,10,000 is accordingly set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 71 - A Kabir - Full Document
1