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

2002 Supreme(HP) 328

M.R.VERMA
DEVA BUILDERS THROUGH M. R. RATTAN – Appellant
Versus
NATHPA JHAKRI JOINT VENTURE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the Plaintiff; Mr. Vijay Pandit with Ms. Yogita Dutta, Advocates, for the Defendants.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The clause 17 of PW-l/A, which purports to confer exclusive Delhi courts' jurisdiction, is invalid as it ousts jurisdiction of competent courts [18000030240012][18000030240018]. - The plaintiff had committed breach of the contract by failing to arrange the loader and thus is not entitled to damages; damages for breach cannot be based on remote consequences or loss of profit [18000030240026][18000030240031][18000030240035]. - The suit was dismissed with costs; no relief to the plaintiff [18000030240040].

What is the effect of clause 17 of the sub-contract agreement on the court's jurisdiction?

What is the court's finding regarding damages for breach of contract when the plaintiff itself breached?

What is the outcome of the suit and the court's ruling on the overall relief sought?


JUDGMENT

M.R. Verma, J.—This suit has been instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 25 lacs on account of damages.

2. The case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint is that the plaintiff is a sole proprietary concern of M.R. Rattan dealing with earth works. The defendant entered into an agreement dated 24.6.1993 with Nathpa Jhakri Joint Power Corporation Limited for construction of Civil Works for head race tunnel and surge shaft for which the defendant required Tippers at the project site for carriage of muck. The plaintiff offered to provide Tippers for the execution of the said work and the parties thus entered into an agreement dated 10.9.1996 whereby the plaintiff was awarded work of transporting the excavated material from Manglad Head Race Tunnel to the dumping areas for a period of one year from the date of the award of the work. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff was to make minimum seven numbers of Tippers available at the work site for mucking and the agreement between the parties could be terminated by either party after giving six weeks notice. The plaintiff was further required to provide a loader for loading muck at the loading


















































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