Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M.PRACHCHHAK
Gujarat Water Supply And Sewerage Board – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant – original defendant No.2 under Section 96 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE against the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Civil Court, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”) in Special Civil Suit No.51 of 1997 (Old Special Civil Suit No. 96 of 1986) whereby the trial Court has allowed the suit and directed the original defendants to pay Rs.10,19,277/- along with the interest.
2. The original plaintiff – respondent No.2 herein is the company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and carrying manufacturing of Pre-Stressed Concrete Pipes and also Civil Engineering Works relating to installation of pipe lines. The defendant No.2 is a statutory body established under the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978. By the said Act the work, assets, liabilities and benefits have been transferred from defendant No.1 to defendant No.2.
2.1 The defendant No.1 issued notice in August / September 1978, being Tender Notice for Bhavnagar Water Supply Scheme Shetrunji Pipeline Project for the purpose of providing,
A party may recover damages for breach of contract when the other party fails to fulfill its contract obligations, particularly regarding timely supply of materials.
The judgment clarified the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the application of the Limitation Act, and the entitlement of the plaintiff to claim losses incurred due to non-cooperation from the defend....
Point of law: When a contract has been broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the amount be paid in case of such breach, or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the....
Civil Courts have jurisdiction to hear claims under construction contracts barred from arbitration, provided they arise within the limitation period set by specific contract conditions.
The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit for damages due to insufficient evidence and the contractor's failure to complete the work as per the contract.
The court upheld the binding nature of the contract, ruling that the Plaintiff's claims were untenable due to failure to exercise contractual options and were barred by limitation.
The suit was within limitation as the cause of action accrued upon the non-payment of the final bill, and not completing the price escalation calculations per the contract terms invalidated the defen....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
