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

1998 Supreme(Guj) 267

N.N.MATHUR
B. PATEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: H.K.PARMAR, P.G.DESAI

N. N. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these Revision Applications under Sec. 12 of the gujarat Public Works Contract Act, 1992, (In short, the Act of 1992) are filed against the order of the Tribunal rejecting the reference barred by lapse of time. As a common question of law arises, they are disposed of by this common order. The necessary facts are set out as follows :- c. R. A. No. 1283 of 1996 the petitioner-contractor was granted contract for construction of rural roads upto S. T. stage including C. D. works in Mehsana District. The work order was issued on 11-9-1989. He did not complete the work within the stipulated period, i. e. , by 10-3-1991 but completed on 31-7-1992. The petitioners Advocate served a notice dated 7-9-1994 on the Executive Engineer to settle the disputes under clause 51 of the General Conditions of the contract. The petitioner also addressed an appeal to the Chief Engineer on 22-10-1994 under clause 51. The Executive Engineer, by his letter dated 16-12-1994 informed the petitioner that there was no dispute covered by clause 51 required to be decided by him. The plea was also taken that clause 51 is intended to be resorted promptly while the work is in progress so th










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