Back
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA
Indicon Westfalia Limited – Appellant
Versus
Yogendra Nath Tiwary, s/o late Pandit Mahendra Nath Tiwary – Respondent
ORDER:
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
The judgment in Original Suit No. 7 of 2017 passed by the Commercial Court at Dhanbad has been challenged by M/s INDICON Westfalia Limited (in short, defendant-company) by filing the present commercial appeal under section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
2. Original Suit No. 7 of 2017 was instituted for a money decree for Rs.1,77,39,940.96/- including taxes and interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f 1st January 2014. In the suit the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and laid in evidence work order vide Exhibit-1, amended work order vide Exhibit-2 and running bills and letter dated 23rd September 2013 to claim a money decree. Arindam Dutta who was the authorised signatory of the defendant-company was examined as DW1 and he has proved 20 documents including general and special conditions of contract, work order no. BW/KPO/002907/481/12-13/000681, original MOM dated 19th September 2012 etc. to resist the money claim made by the plaintiff, and to support the counter-claim to the tune of Rs. 31,19,727/-.
3. The plaintiff who is the respondent before us has pleaded that a work order dated 1st November 2012 was issued for execution of civil foundation w
The main legal point established is that a plaintiff may be entitled to extra-work claims based on actual work executed, and objections raised without evidence may lack basis.
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 upheld that a party may be compensated for work done despite absence of a written contract when the other party benefits, reinforcing principles of unjust enrichment under Section 70 of the....
Unilateral invoice without acknowledgment does not extend limitation for contract payment claims; warranty period does not postpone cause of action.
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.
The court emphasized that the plaintiff-company must prove anticipated profit on account of non-execution of work to be entitled to compensation. It also highlighted the need for evidence to establis....
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
