Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Union Of India vs Raman Iron Foundry on 12 March, 1974
In Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231,
the Supreme Court has held as under:-
Jabed Sheikh vs Taher Mallick on 24 February, 1941
The same view has also been taken consistently by different
High Courts in India. We may mention only a few of the
decisions, namely, Jabed Sheikh v. Taher Mallik [AIR 1941 Cal
OMP(Comm) No.153/2018 Page 9
639 : 197 IC 606 : 45 Cal WN 519] , S. Milkha Singh v. N.K.
Gopala Krishna Mudaliar [AIR 1956 Punj 174] and Iron and
Hardware (India) Co. v. Firm Shamlal and Bros [AIR 1954
Bom 423, 425-26 : ILR 1954 Bom 739 : 56 Bom LR 473] .
Chagla, C.J. in the last mentioned case, stated the law in these
terms: (at pp. 425-26)
"In my opinion it would not be true to say that a person who
commits a breach of the contract incurs any pecuniary liability,
nor would it be true to say that the other party to the contract
who complains of the breach has any amount due to him from
the other party.
Iron & Hardware (India) Co. vs Firm Shamlal & Bros. on 14 January, 1954
The same view has also been taken consistently by different
High Courts in India. We may mention only a few of the
decisions, namely, Jabed Sheikh v. Taher Mallik [AIR 1941 Cal
OMP(Comm) No.153/2018 Page 9
639 : 197 IC 606 : 45 Cal WN 519] , S. Milkha Singh v. N.K.
Gopala Krishna Mudaliar [AIR 1956 Punj 174] and Iron and
Hardware (India) Co. v. Firm Shamlal and Bros [AIR 1954
Bom 423, 425-26 : ILR 1954 Bom 739 : 56 Bom LR 473] .
Chagla, C.J. in the last mentioned case, stated the law in these
terms: (at pp. 425-26)
"In my opinion it would not be true to say that a person who
commits a breach of the contract incurs any pecuniary liability,
nor would it be true to say that the other party to the contract
who complains of the breach has any amount due to him from
the other party.
State Of Goa vs M/S Praveen Enterprises on 4 July, 2011
OMP(Comm) No.153/2018 Page 6
In view of findings on Issue No.1, claimant is entitled to
balance amount of Rs. 48,65,027/- and as such Respondent is
not entitled for any refund as claimed in the counter claim.
Secondly the counter claim dated 7.5.2014 is also time barred,
having been filed after expiry of 3 years period of limitation
from the date when cause of action had allegedly accrued. As
per the undisputed facts, the last payment was made by the
Respondent to the claimant upto 24.2.2010 and so period of
limitation of 3 years would start from this date. The counter
claim has been filed on 07.05.2014 i.e. after expiry of 3 years
period of limitation and so the counter claim is time barred.
This legal position has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the above referred case i.e. State of Goa Vs. Praveen
Enterprises, wherein para 17 of the judgment it has been held
that:-
Section 74 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Associate Builders vs Delhi Development Authority on 25 November, 2014
In any case, as held by the Supreme Court in Associate
Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49, this
Court would not act as a Court of Appeal while adjudicating on a
challenge to the Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996. I do not find the Arbitral Award to be
suffering from any of the limited grounds that have been explained by
the Supreme Court in the above judgment for setting aside an Arbitral
Award.
Delhi Jal Board & Anr. vs M/S Dev Raj Kataria & Anr. on 9 December, 2015
The correct title is Delhi Jal Board & Anr.
Vs. Dev Raj Kataria and Anr. 2016(1) Arb.L.R. 196(Delhi)
decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. This judgment is not
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
In this reported case the contract was rescinded by the
contractor because the Claimant i.e. Delhi Jal Board, was
guilty of delays in performance of contract and consequently
Respondent therein was entitled to claim cost/ expenses
incurred for the contract. But in the case in hand, the facts are
different and as such this ruling is not applicable. Even
otherwise the respondent is not concerned as to have much
amount the claimant has spent to complete the project.
1