J.B.GOEL
ANAND AND ASSOCIATES – Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent
( 1 ) BY this order I will dispose of the plaintiff s application (I. A. No. 346/97) under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for restraining the defendants from enforcing the recovery of security amount of Rs. 2 lacs and levy of penalty of Rs. 14,55,237. 00 by withholding these amounts due and payable to the plaintiff in respect of other pending bills towards other works executed by the plaintiff.
( 2 ) THIS application has been filed in a suit for declaration and injunction against the action of defendants in levying the penalty and enforcing it.
( 3 ) BRIEFLY the facts are that the work "sh: Construction of peripheral storm water drains in Sector 22 relating to development of 1769. 88 hectors of land at Papankala (Dwarka) Project Phase I, including alternative plots around Village Amber Hai, Bagdola and Manglapuri was awarded by defendant No. 3 to the plaintiff vide acceptance letter No. F. 55 (488)/eewd-171, DDA/95-96/1863, dated 13. 9. 1995 for which a formal contract No. 9/ef/wd-7/dda/95-96, dated 20. 9. 1995 was also executed between the parties. Total value of the work was Rs. 2,59,95,026. 00 and the work was to be commenced by 23. 9. 1995 and to be completed by 22. 9. 1
REFERRED TO : Singh Duggal and Company v. Union of India
Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, AIR 1974 SC 1265 : Maula Bux v. Union of India
REFERRED TO : Maula Bux v. Union of India
Air Foam Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
State of Orissa v. Calcutta Company Ltd.
State of Gujarat v. M.K. Patel and Co.
Vishwanath Sood v. Union of India
Union of India v. Air Foam Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.