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

S.RAVINDRA BHAT
J. S. Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
Vice Chairman, DDA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sudhanshu Batra
For the Respondent: Ajay Verma

JUDGMENT :

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

The plaintiff claims a money decree, based on the sum of Rs. 81,54,667/-towards various heads, on account of amounts due from the Defendant (hereafter called "DDA") in a works contract; additionally, the plaintiff claims interest, at a quantified rate, as well as pendent lite and future interest. The claim is premised on the performance of a works contract, entered into by the parties, for construction of 448 flats at Jhilmil Colony.

2. The facts, to the extent they are uncontroverted, are that the plaintiff, who describes himself as sole proprietor of a firm, successfully bid, and was awarded the contract, by the DDA. The bid was accepted on 09.9.1991; the written contract (Ex-PW-1/2) was entered into on 16.09.1991. The time for performance, agreed upon by the parties, was 15 months, from the date of signing the agreement. It was however, extended. The plaintiff says that this was due to various defaults by DDA; the latter however denies that position. Eventually, the construction was completed on 12.12.1994. The completion certificate was issued o






















































































































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