UNION OF INDIA Vs. M/S. PAM DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.
LAWS(SC)-2014-2-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on
February 18,2014
UNION OF INDIA
Appellant
VERSUS
M/S. Pam Development Pvt. Ltd.
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
M/S FARUKH WARASI VS. M/S B S B K PRIVATE LIMITED, THROUGH ITS VICE PRESIDENT V R CHETTY [LAWS(CHH)-2018-6-48] [REFERRED TO]ANUPAM INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. STATE LEVEL INDUSTRY FACILITATION COUNCIL [LAWS(GJH)-2022-12-684] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-161] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANOTHER VS. VINEET SINGH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CHH)-2017-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
A.B. SINGH VS. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI CHAUDHARY AVADHESH KUMAR, EX.PRESIDENT OF VOLLEYBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA, NO.7, LAXMI ROAD, DALANWALA, DEHRADUN 248 001, UTTARKHAND VS. VOLLEYBALL FEDERATION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY ROOM NO.72, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM PARK TOWN, CHENNAI 600 003. THROUGH THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, J.NADARAJAN, JOINT SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2017-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY MEHRA VS. ENERCON GMBH [LAWS(BOM)-2019-6-89] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH HEAVY MACHINERY VS. INDUSTRY FACILITATION COUNCIL [LAWS(CHH)-2014-4-21] [REFERRED TO]
SAV STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. EKTA ISPAT AND POWER LIMITED [LAWS(CHH)-2015-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
ROPTONAL LTD VS. ANEES BAZMEE [LAWS(BOM)-2016-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING CO VS. SHAAN REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2019-1-233] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR GOPI VS. INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-212] [REFERRED TO]
JATIN PRATAP DESAI VS. A. C. CHOKSHI SHARE BROKER PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2021-4-86] [REFERRED TO]
U.P.RAJYA BHANDARAN NIGAM LTD VS. U.P.PURVA SAINIK KALYAN NIGAM LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2024-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal has been filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment and order of the Calcutta High Court dated 15th June, 2005 rendered in APOT NO.643 of 2003.
(2.)We may notice here the bare essential facts, which would have a bearing on the legal controversy involved in the appeal.
(3.)On 19th October, 1992, the appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent for construction of Industrial Covered Electrical Loco Shed. Subsequently, according to the appellant, the agreement was terminated in terms of clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract by which the agreement between the parties was governed. The twin reasons for termination of the contract were that the respondent initially delayed the commencement of the work and subsequently executed the work which was of inferior quality. Therefore, the appellant had to get the balance work completed from another contractor.
(2.)We may notice here the bare essential facts, which would have a bearing on the legal controversy involved in the appeal.
(3.)On 19th October, 1992, the appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent for construction of Industrial Covered Electrical Loco Shed. Subsequently, according to the appellant, the agreement was terminated in terms of clause 64 of the General Conditions of Contract by which the agreement between the parties was governed. The twin reasons for termination of the contract were that the respondent initially delayed the commencement of the work and subsequently executed the work which was of inferior quality. Therefore, the appellant had to get the balance work completed from another contractor.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.