SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Del) 259

VIKRAMAJIT SEN
PRAKASH SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.SALVAN, GIRISH AGRAWAL, MONIKA SHARMA

VIKRAMAJITSEN J.

( 1 ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are not in dispute. An Award was published wherein two claims were partly allowed, one was fully allowed and two were rejected. Out of a total claim of Rs. 8. 79. 085. 00 a sum of Rs. 2,11,820. 61 was granted by the Arbitrator. The 1st claim was for Rs. 2,94,309. 00 as the amount due in the Final Bill, towards work done but not paid. The finding was that this was partly justified to the extent of Rs. 1,20,775. 25. The next was for the refund of the Security Deposit of Rs. 84. 776. 00 which was found to be fully justified. The third claim for Rs. 5,00,000. 00 , towards damages for work executed beyond the stipulated date of completion was rejected as being unjustified The fourth claim for Rs. 2,00,000. 00 under Clause 10-C, was held to be partly justified to the extent of Rs. 6,279. 36. And the final claim was on account of pendente lite interest, which was fully disallowed. Three Counter Claims were also filed.

( 2 ) BOTH parties have filed Objections, IA No. 1344/90 being those of the Petitioner- Contractor. At the hearing before me, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Contractor made a statement that he wa





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top