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

1971 Supreme(Raj) 102

C.B.BHARGAVA
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Appellant
Versus
ANAND CONSTRUCTION CO. , MANDI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
MURLIDHAR PUROHIT, Sagarmal Mehta

Judgment


C. B. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and decree dated 31st March 1967, of the District Judge Kota by which plaintiffs suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 10940/ -.

( 2 ) THE only point which has been canvassed on behalf of the appellant is that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. Learned Deputy Government advocate contends that the suit is governed by Article 18 of the Limitation Act of 1963 and having been filed after the expiry of three years from the date of the completion of the work was beyond time.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFF respondent was given a contract for terrazzo and cement flooring in the maharao Bhim Singh Hospital Kota on 25th February. 1957, and for the construction of a road inside the same hospital on 30th March, 1957 at an estimated cost of Rs. 96,119 and Rs. 15,238/- respectively. In terms of the agreement, the plaintiff was required to deposit security and if it was not deposited in advance, it was provided that 10 per cent, shall be deducted from his bills. Clause 1 (b) of the agreement provides that : the persons whose tender may be accepted that is the contractor shall permit Government at 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