Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
S.G.PANDIT, GEETHA K.B.
Government Of Karnataka, R/By Its Chief Secretary – Appellant
Versus
B.V. Reddy & Company, R/By Its Managing Partner, B. Venkata Reddy, S/o. Late Rami Reddy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals and procedural context (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claims made by the plaintiff and contract details (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. plaintiff's submission of work execution under supervision (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 41) |
| 4. defendants’ counter-claims and allegations of negligence (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. trial court's issues and framing of relevant legal questions (Para 24 , 33 , 43 , 45) |
| 6. court's reasoning on procedural missteps and legal standards (Para 49 , 52 , 56 , 60 , 66) |
| 7. foundation for establishing breach of contract and damages (Para 105 , 110 , 120 , 130) |
| 8. conclusion regarding claims and counterclaims (Para 176 , 178 , 180 , 182) |
JUDGMENT :
GEETHA K. B., J.
1. These appeals are filed by the defendants/appellants challenging the judgment and decree passed in Commercial O.S.No.2/2020 on the file of Principal District Judge, Koppal dated 20.02.2021 and order passed in Civil Review Petition No.1/2021 dated 08.07.2021 and also dismissal of Counter-Claim filed by defendants respectively.
2. As both appeals arise out of the same case, both appeals are clubbed together, arguments heard and common judgment is being delivered.
3. Parties would be referred wit
In a Turn-Key contract, the contractor bears full responsibility for execution; failure to meet contractual obligations excludes claims for damages arising from project failure.
Arbitral awards under Section 34 set aside in part for patent illegality where claims lack evidence of loss; sustained for plausible delay findings, scope changes; severability applies to separable p....
Civil Courts have jurisdiction to hear claims under construction contracts barred from arbitration, provided they arise within the limitation period set by specific contract conditions.
The court emphasized the requirement for the arbitrator to assign reasons in support of the award and the limited scope of interference by the court in arbitration awards.
The court affirmed that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited, allowing intervention only for evident legal errors, not for reevaluation of evidence or correctness.
An arbitrator's award can be set aside if it is based on a fundamental breach of contract that ignores material clauses of the agreement, leading to a finding that is perverse and constitutes a paten....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
