Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.30 seconds)
Joginder Kumar Gandhi vs D.D.A. And Anr. on 26 May, 1999 cites

Pride Construction Co. vs Delhi Development Authority on 31 October, 1991

In the case of M/s. Pride Construction (Supra) , this court found that since the arbitrator held that the petitioner could not come to know about the increase in labour wages upto the time of submitting of its tender, the contractor becomes entitled for the extra amount only under Clause 10-C if he properly pays the increased wages under the notification. It was further held that since there was no dispute that the contractor did pay the wages as increased by the notification dated 23.2.1982 and the petitioner was claiming only that amount, which was upheld by the arbitrator , therefore, the court found that there was no reasonable ground and reason to differ with the view taken by the arbitrator which was found to be reasonable.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Pishori Lal Magu vs Delhi Development Authority And Anr. on 28 January, 1993

7. In my considered opinion, the facts of the aforesaid cases are distinguishable from the facts of the present case . In the aforesaid two cases, the arbitrator on appreciation of the records found that the petitioner/contractor is entitled to the increase in the labour wages, whereas in the present case on appreciation of records, the arbitrator found that the petitioner/contractor is not entitled to the increase. Besides, in the case of M/s. Pishori Lal Mago(Supra), the court held that the contractor is entitled to an amount on account of increase in the labour wages as increase in the labour wages was at the time of receipt of the tender for the work. In that case, the labour wages were made applicable w.e.f. 23.2.1982. In other words, in that case the labour rates were increased after receipt of the tender i.e. 4.12.1981 and that the tender was accepted on 15.3.1982. In the present ease, however, the rates were increased after negotiations had taken place and the contract was awarded to the petitioner. The arbitrator on consideration of the entire evidence on record and the relevant date of submission of tender and effective date of the notification, found that the petitioner is not entitled to benefit of the aforesaid notification. That again, in my considered opinion, is the conclusion arrived at by the arbitrator on appreciation of record and this court cannot re-appreciate the findings and conclusions arrived at by the arbitrator. The aforesaid conclusion of the arbitrator and the award passed by him also stand upheld.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1