Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.Y. KOGJE, J.L. ODEDRA
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd – Appellant
Versus
National Builders – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's jurisdiction and claim details (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding limitation and claim substantiation (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. evidence and claims handled by the civil court (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's analysis on claims and limitation period (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. final decision dismissing the appeal (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the appellants against judgment and order dated 05.05.1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bharuch in Special Civil Suit No.100 of 1991.
2. The original plaintiff is the contractor, while original defendant No.2 is the principal, defendant No.3 is the Executive Engineer of defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 is the State.
3. The tender was invited for construction of 408 B-type and 258 C-type quarters for Narmada Project at Kevadia Colony. The plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.37,58,657/- and interest at the rate of 18% from the date of suit under several claims and the Civil Court by the impugned judgment and order, partly allowed the claim and decreed the suit for an amount of Rs.15,95,677.44 with simple interest at the rate of 15% from the date of filing of the suit ti
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 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....
The court clarified misapplications of the Limitation Act and confirmed entitlement to claims based on government notifications regarding minimum wage increases in a construction contract context.
The court affirmed that a contractor's claims for delays caused by defendants were valid, and it has the discretion to adjust interest rates based on economic conditions.
The court established that the starting point for limitation under the Limitation Act depends on when the right to sue accrues, not merely on the date of breach or completion of work.
In a Turn-Key contract, the contractor bears full responsibility for execution; failure to meet contractual obligations excludes claims for damages arising from project failure.
The court emphasized the requirement for the arbitrator to assign reasons in support of the award and the limited scope of interference by the court in arbitration awards.
The court upheld that delayed payments must be compensated with interest, emphasizing that the appellants’ claims of irregularities were unsubstantiated and did not impede the contractors' right to r....
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
