Y. SLEEBACHEN Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER WRO/ PWD
LAWS(SC)-2014-8-19
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
August 04,2014
Y. Sleebachen
Appellant
VERSUS
Superintending Engineer Wro/ Pwd
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMDAS SHRINIVAS NAYAK [REFERRED TO]JINESHWARDAS VS. JAGRANI [REFERRED TO]
BAKSHI DEV RAJ VS. SUDHIR KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
G. VASANTHI VS. M. MUNEESHWARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2019-1-235] [REFERRED TO]MANJU DEVI VS. BOARD OF REVENUE ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2020-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BACHAN VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-9-194] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-3-72] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE SPECIAL VOLUNTARY VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE [LAWS(SC)-2018-10-68] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWAR LAL VS. KISHNA RAM AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-66] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA BADOLA VS. TUSHAR PATNI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-5-320] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAV PD. VS. D.D.C. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MANAJ TOLLWAY PVT. LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2021-3-220] [REFERRED TO]
ANTONY WASTE HANDLING CELL LTD VS. BHIWANDI NIZAMPUR CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [LAWS(BOM)-2020-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT POONCH AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2017-9-110] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDER YADAV VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(DLH)-2016-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SINGH VS. VANDANA [LAWS(MPH)-2019-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
SMT MANJU DEVI VS. BOARD OF REVENUE [LAWS(ALL)-2020-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. B.M.S. ASSOCIATES [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-4-83] [REFERRED TO]
K. RAVINDER REDDY VS. ALLIANCE BUSINESS SCHOOL [LAWS(KAR)-2016-8-59] [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]
ASHFAQ AHMAD VS. ABDUL SATTAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-485] [REFERRED TO]
A MOHANDOSS VS. P VIKASH KUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RASHID SAHIB VS. RAMACHANDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2022-5-46] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RASHID SAHIB VS. RAMACHANDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2022-5-46] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. JAMNA DEVI VS. SMT. SARSWATI DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2018-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)By the common judgment dated 29.02.2012, the Madras High Court has decided three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 37 (1) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Those three appeals were filed by the respondents herein challenging the orders dated 28.04.2011 which were passed by the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. The reasons for disposing of the appeals by one single order was the commonality of the parties as well as the issue involved in the said three appeals.
(3.)It so happened that the appellant, who is an Engineering Contractor, was awarded three contracts by the respondents herein particulars whereof are as under:
(i) For the rehabilitation and modernization of Gundar Reservoir system in Tirunelveli District the bids were called and in which the Petitioner became the successful bidder to execute the work for a contract price of Rs.80,14,605/- under registered Agreement dated 02.04.1998 within a period of 15 months to complete the contract work.
(ii) For the rehabilitation and modernization of Karuppanadhi Reservoir system in Tirunelveli District the bids were called and in which the Petitioner became the successful bidder to execute the work for a contract price of Rs.55,82,633/- under the Registered Agreement dated 20.07.1998 within a period of 18 months to complete the contracts work.
(iii) For the rehabilitation and modernization of Kannadian Anicut and Channel Reach 1 in Tirunelveli District the bids were called and in which the Petitioner became the successful bidder to execute the work for a contract price of Rs.69,24,038/- under registered agreement 28.07.1998 within a period of 26 months to complete the contract work.
(2.)By the common judgment dated 29.02.2012, the Madras High Court has decided three Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 37 (1) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Those three appeals were filed by the respondents herein challenging the orders dated 28.04.2011 which were passed by the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu. The reasons for disposing of the appeals by one single order was the commonality of the parties as well as the issue involved in the said three appeals.
(3.)It so happened that the appellant, who is an Engineering Contractor, was awarded three contracts by the respondents herein particulars whereof are as under:
(i) For the rehabilitation and modernization of Gundar Reservoir system in Tirunelveli District the bids were called and in which the Petitioner became the successful bidder to execute the work for a contract price of Rs.80,14,605/- under registered Agreement dated 02.04.1998 within a period of 15 months to complete the contract work.
(ii) For the rehabilitation and modernization of Karuppanadhi Reservoir system in Tirunelveli District the bids were called and in which the Petitioner became the successful bidder to execute the work for a contract price of Rs.55,82,633/- under the Registered Agreement dated 20.07.1998 within a period of 18 months to complete the contracts work.
(iii) For the rehabilitation and modernization of Kannadian Anicut and Channel Reach 1 in Tirunelveli District the bids were called and in which the Petitioner became the successful bidder to execute the work for a contract price of Rs.69,24,038/- under registered agreement 28.07.1998 within a period of 26 months to complete the contract work.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.