Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (0.35 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 70 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 113 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 23 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P. vs Tipper Chand on 22 February, 1980
5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the suit was barred by limitation and was not saved by the provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as held by the trial Court. It was argued that the cause of action had arisen when the final bill was passed and the suit which was filed on 18th December, 1981 was on the face of !t barred by limitation even if Article 113 were to be invoked. It was further contended that the proceedings under Clause 30 of the agreement Exh. 104 were not arbitration proceedings in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Tipper Chand, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1522. It was contended that even if the proceedings under Clause 30 were to be treated as arbitration proceedings, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which did not apply in such cases. It was contended that the Housing Commissioner acting under Clause 30 of the agreement was not a Court and he did not have any trappings of a Court. Resorting to Section 14 by the trial Court was therefore erroneous. The learned Counsel further argued that the respondent could not have claimed any increase in the rates in view of the clear stipulation contained in Clause 10 of the contract Exh. 104, which debarred the contractor from putting up any claim for enhanced rate. It was also argued that there was no evidence adduced before the trial Court to prove any price rise or incurring of any extra expenditure and the photostat copies of the documents contained in the file
Exh. 118 which was summoned were produced without leading any evidence or producing the original documents and proving their contents. It was further contended that the contract Exh. 104 was validly executed in accordance with the provisions prescribed for the manner and form of such contract.
Section 21 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
V. R. Sejbramanyam vs B. Thayappa And Others on 1 February, 1961
(g) The decision of the Supreme Court in V. R. Subramanyam v. B. Thayyappa, reported in (1961) 3 SCR 663 : (AIR 1966 SC 1034) was cited for the proposition that where the additional work was not covered by an agreement, the plaintiff was entitled to recover compensation Under Section 70 of the Contract Act. The Supreme Court held that if a party to contract has rendered services to the other not intending it to be gratuitous and the other person has obtained the benefit, the former is entitled to compensation for the value of services rendered by him. It was held that since the respondent had made additional construction to the building not meaning the work to the gratuitous, he was entitled to receive compensation for the work done, which was not covered by the agreement.