Back
GOUTAM BHADURI, RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL
Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Prakash Industries Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
1. This is plaintiff's first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC') against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Janjgir- Champa in Civil Suit No.01B/2014, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.54,92,129/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum along with Rs.25,000/- towards expenses incurred on legal notice, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of civil suit are that respondents-defendants' company issued a work order No.PIL/SKJ/A/1207/01//66 on 12.07.2010 for the work of design, manufacture, supply, laying, jointing and testing of 150 MM MS and 400 and 500 MM BWSC pipes and the amount of work order is Rs.2,23,96,200/-, which was accepted by the appellant/plaintiff and by mutual consent, amendments were carried out in the said work order on 19.07.2010, 09.08.2010, 25.01.2011, 01.02.2011 and 09.02.2011 to the effect that the work is to be completed by 20th November in place of 30th September, as per amendment in the work order. It was pleaded that an additional condition was inserted in the work order for supply of
The court upheld that delayed payments must be compensated with interest, emphasizing that the appellants’ claims of irregularities were unsubstantiated and did not impede the contractors' right to r....
The lack of privity of contract and failure to establish a cause of action were central to the court's decision.
Contractors must adhere to measurement protocols outlined in contract agreements; failure by the other party to fulfill their obligations does not negate a claimant's right to recover amounts due.
The Court determined that contractual disputes involving factual questions requiring evidence must be resolved outside the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The court upheld that a party may be compensated for work done despite absence of a written contract when the other party benefits, reinforcing principles of unjust enrichment under Section 70 of the....
Indefinite payment conditions in contracts are unreasonable and violate the principle of contractual consideration, requiring clarity and a specified timeline.
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
