Back
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
Deoraj Singh, Transport Contractor – Appellant
Versus
Central Coalfield Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
This Commercial Appeal has been filed by M/s Deoraj Singh, Transport Contractor to challenge the judgment dated 29th November 2019 passed in Money Suit No. 08 of 2016 (renumbered as Original Suit No. 25 of 2017).
2. Money Suit No. 08 of 2016 was filed by M/s Deoraj Singh, claiming itself a transport contractor, for the reliefs as formulated in paragraph no. 37 of the plaint which are extracted, as under:
(b) That a decree for pendente lite and future loss that may be sustained by the plaintiff during the of the suit be also granted in favour of the plaintiff.
(c) That cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.
(d) that any relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff be found entitled be also granted to the plaintiff.”
3. In the Money Suit, the plaintiff which is the appellant before us (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff-company’) claimed a decree for Rs. 12,27,07,806.78/- with a decree pendent lite and future loss. Vide
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....
The court established that an Employer's failure to fulfill contractual obligations can invalidate penalties imposed on a contractor for delays, emphasizing fairness in administrative decisions.
Contractual obligations regarding delayed construction projects must consider the contractor's contributions to delays and enforceability of claims under economic duress.
Contractors cannot claim damages for delays caused by their own inaction or failure to meet contractual obligations, even if land acquisition delays occur.
Arbitral awards under Section 34 set aside in part for patent illegality where claims lack evidence of loss; sustained for plausible delay findings, scope changes; severability applies to separable p....
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 lack of privity of contract and failure to establish a cause of action were central to the court's decision.
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
