Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.32 seconds)
M/S. A.S. Sachdeva & Sons vs Delhi Development Authority on 6 October, 2009 cites

M.L. Mahajan vs Delhi Development Authority on 4 August, 1997

6. The judgment in M.L. Mahajan's case has been relied upon particularly with reference to its para 11 to contend that by virtue of this judgment it has been held that in terms of clause 10 no compensation or damages should be awarded to the contractor. The judgment in Steel Authority of India Limited's case has been relied upon for the same proposition especially with reference to its para 15 which holds that where the consequence of the contractual clause is only extension of time for completion of work then contractor would not be entitled to damages or compensation for such costs.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Steel Authority Of India Limited vs J.C. Budharaja, Government And Mining ... on 1 September, 1999

If that be the law, and which is, the objector accordingly cannot derive any benefit of the judgments in the cases of M.L. Mahajan's or Republic Construction Company or the Steel Authority of India Limited's. More so, the counsel for the non-objector is in the opinion of this Court, correct in its contention that the judgment in Steel Authority of India's case cannot support the objector for the reason that the clause which was dealt with by the Supreme Court did not contain the expression „unavoidable‟ and which is the expression as found in clause 1 of the specifications and conditions in this case. Further, and in my opinion rightly, counsel for the non-objector is correct in contending that no plea has been raised before the Arbitrator by the objector in its pleadings that the delays as caused were on account of unavoidable circumstances. I have been taken through the relevant pleadings of the objector before the Arbitrator and it is quite clear that it is not the pleading of the objector that the delay caused was on account of unavoidable circumstances. In any case, a reference to the documents C-67 which is the application for extension of time filed by the contractor and accepted by the objector shows that the reasons which have been CS(OS) 73/1996 Page 6 given for the delay are not only those which are the subject matter of clause 10 and clause 1 of the specifications and conditions, but are a total of 13 grounds for delay and except three grounds i.e. ground Nos. 4,10 and 11 which deal with the delay on account of factors specified in clause 10 and 1 of the specifications and conditions , the other factors ,which factors are 10 in number contained at serial No. 1 to 3, 5 to 9 and 12 and 13 are diverse reasons such as non- availability of various drawings, delays in various decisions making as required and so on. On the basis of which the final figure of damages have been arrived at by the Arbitrator. Therefore, it cannot be said that the damages which have been awarded could not have been done so by the Arbitrator because of the clause 10 and clause 1 of the specifications and conditions. Finally, the fact that the non-objector had claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- but the claimant was only awarded Rs.2,20,000/- shows that the awarded figure has been arrived as a result of co-mingling of all the factors and consequently this claim has been reduced from Rs.8,00,000/- as claim of Rs.2,20,000/-. After all the Arbitrator could also have instead of Rs.5,000/- a month awarded Rs.7,500/- a month or Rs.10,000/- a month and so on. In view of the above discussion, I therefore reject the contention of the objector with respect to claim No.7.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 222 - Full Document

Maula Bux vs Union Of India on 19 August, 1969

"13. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there was no justification for the arbitrator to have given an award for Rs.9,535/- in respect of Claim No.7. It has further been submitted that it was incumbent upon the contractor to have returned the excess quantity of cement and pig-lead, when was not used and having failed to do so, there was every justification for the Union of India to claim this amount and the arbitrator has committed great error in allowing this claim, which was based on Clause 42 of the Agreement. Learned counsel for the claimant has on the other hand, submitted that the Clause 42 was by way of penalty and in the absence of the respondent having proved any loss, they could not claim double the amount and so the claim has rightly been allowed in favour of the claimant. A perusal of the file shows that submissions were made in writing by the department, taking shelter of Clause 42, and the arbitrator has given reasons for coming to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to recover a sum of Rs.9,353/-, which had been deducted by way of double rate recoveries by the respondent. It would, in this regard, be convenient at this stage to refer to the judgment in the case of Maula Bux versus Union of India reported as A.I.R. 1970 SC 1955, in which the following observations have been made:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 430 - J C Shah - Full Document

Rajendra Construction Company vs Maharashtra Housing & Area Development ... on 12 August, 2005

In this judgment, all the recent judgments of the Supreme Court where the interest has been reduced have been referred to. These judgments of the Supreme Court are Rajendra Construction Co. Vs. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & ors.2005 (6) 678, McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.& ors 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Indag Rubber Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 700 and Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 186 - C K Thakker - Full Document

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

In this judgment, all the recent judgments of the Supreme Court where the interest has been reduced have been referred to. These judgments of the Supreme Court are Rajendra Construction Co. Vs. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & ors.2005 (6) 678, McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.& ors 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Indag Rubber Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 700 and Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 1325 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn vs Indag Rubber Ltd on 5 September, 2006

In this judgment, all the recent judgments of the Supreme Court where the interest has been reduced have been referred to. These judgments of the Supreme Court are Rajendra Construction Co. Vs. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & ors.2005 (6) 678, McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.& ors 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Indag Rubber Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 700 and Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 184 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd vs G. Harischandra Reddy And Anr on 10 January, 2007

In this judgment, all the recent judgments of the Supreme Court where the interest has been reduced have been referred to. These judgments of the Supreme Court are Rajendra Construction Co. Vs. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & ors.2005 (6) 678, McDermott International Inc. Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.& ors 2006 (11) SCC 181, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpn. Vs. Indag Rubber Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 700 and Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Vs. G.Harischandra, 2007 (2) SCC 720.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 316 - Full Document
1   2 Next