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

1997 Supreme(Del) 510

J.B.GOEL
ANAND AND ASSOCIATES – Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.SUDHARKAR RAO, Harish Malhotra, NAMITA CHAUDHARY, Shailesh Kapur

J. B. GOEL, J.

( 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






































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