Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)Sudershan Kumar Bhayana (Deceased) Thr ... vs Vinod Seth (Deceased) Thr Lrs & Anr on 27 September, 2023
In Fateh Chand (Supra); Kailash Nath (Supra); Sudershan Kumar
Bhayana (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs. Vinod Seth (Deceased) Thr LRs (Supra),
it has been held that a clause in a contract enabling a party to claim LD only
entitles it to claim the sum up to the LD amount mentioned in the contract
subject to proving the actual loss suffered. The LD clause does not entitle a
party to claim the whole LD sum automatically upon the occurrence of
breach. In view of this settled position of law, the Petitioner‟s failure to raise
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 60/2025 PageSigned
11 of 17
By:GAUTAM
ASWAL
Signing Date:20.05.2025
17:06:55
its LD claim as a counter claim and seeking a declaration that pre-
arbitration adjustment carried out it by it to unilaterally recover the LD
amount, was illegal.
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
M/S. Kailash Nath Associates vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 9 January, 2015
In Fateh Chand (Supra); Kailash Nath (Supra); Sudershan Kumar
Bhayana (Deceased) Thr LRs Vs. Vinod Seth (Deceased) Thr LRs (Supra),
it has been held that a clause in a contract enabling a party to claim LD only
entitles it to claim the sum up to the LD amount mentioned in the contract
subject to proving the actual loss suffered. The LD clause does not entitle a
party to claim the whole LD sum automatically upon the occurrence of
breach. In view of this settled position of law, the Petitioner‟s failure to raise
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 60/2025 PageSigned
11 of 17
By:GAUTAM
ASWAL
Signing Date:20.05.2025
17:06:55
its LD claim as a counter claim and seeking a declaration that pre-
arbitration adjustment carried out it by it to unilaterally recover the LD
amount, was illegal.
Maula Bux vs Union Of India on 19 August, 1969
21. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that 8 EoTs were granted by the
petitioner to the respondent. However, it is the respondent‟s case that the
first 7 EoTs were granted without imposition of LD for the delay, and that
the same resulted in condoning the delay as the alleged delay was beyond
the control of the respondent due to the unrest and inclement weather in
Kashmir Valley. The same was also duly communicated to the petitioner
vide multiple letters/communications. Reference is specifically made to the
8th EoT, i.e., the final EoT granted, whereby, for the first time, a delay of
677 days was stated to be directly attributed to the respondent and liable for
damages and an imposition of damages at the rate of 0.05% per day up to
10% of the contract amount was recommended. It is also pointed out that
even in the 8th EoT, no loss was mentioned to be suffered by the petitioner
which can justify the imposition of LD. While placing reliance on decisions
of the Apex Court in Kailash Nath Associates v. DDA,3 Fateh Chand v.
Balkishan Dass,4 and Maula Bux v. Union of India,5 as well as decisions of
3
(2015) 4 SCC 136.
Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
P.R. Shah Shares & Stock Brokers (P.) ... vs Bhh Securities (P.) Ltd. on 20 June, 2002
40. Therefore, following the well etched-out law laid down in catena of
judicial precedents, some of which are P.R. Shah, Shares and Stock Brokers
Pvt. Ltd. vs. BHH Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors11; Anglo American
Metallurgical Coal Pty.
Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty ... vs Mmtc Ltd. on 17 December, 2020
Ltd. v. MMTC Ltd12; Associate Builders v. DDA13;
Dyna Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd14, this court will not
replace its own view over the view adopted by the AT based on appreciation
of facts. There is no patent illegality committed by the AT in reaching a
finding that Petitioner cannot claim loss allegedly suffered by the
government exchequer, if any, that may have been proved.
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
Ltd. v. MMTC Ltd12; Associate Builders v. DDA13;
Dyna Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd14, this court will not
replace its own view over the view adopted by the AT based on appreciation
of facts. There is no patent illegality committed by the AT in reaching a
finding that Petitioner cannot claim loss allegedly suffered by the
government exchequer, if any, that may have been proved.
M/S Dyna Technologies Pvt.Ltd. vs M/S Crompton Greaves Ltd. on 18 December, 2019
Ltd. v. MMTC Ltd12; Associate Builders v. DDA13;
Dyna Technologies (P) Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd14, this court will not
replace its own view over the view adopted by the AT based on appreciation
of facts. There is no patent illegality committed by the AT in reaching a
finding that Petitioner cannot claim loss allegedly suffered by the
government exchequer, if any, that may have been proved.