Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice P. VELMURUGAN
Thiru.P.Janakiraman, Civil Engineering Contractor – Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff is a class-i contractor engaged in road construction. (Para 1 , 10 , 36 , 48) |
| 2. details of contract execution and associated delays. (Para 3 , 14 , 38 , 68 , 92) |
| 3. plaintiff's argument focuses on non-handling of site and resultant losses. (Para 6 , 19 , 23 , 67 , 81) |
| 4. court's findings on breach of contract and responsibility. (Para 172 , 174 , 182) |
| 5. final conclusion: suits are dismissed. (Para 203) |
JUDGMENT :
Pleadings in C.S.No.817 of 2012:
Plaint averments:
The plaintiff is engaged in the business of undertaking contracts for laying of roads, construction of bridges, culverts and other allied civil works. The plaintiff is a Class-I contractor in the Highways Department, State Level in the State of Tamil Nadu and has executed several Government works for Highways and other Department's road works.
2. The Department is the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Superintending Engineer, Highways, Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Circle, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035 and the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan, Division-1, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
3. The Chief Engineer, Highways, METRO, Alandur, Chennai-600
Contractors cannot claim damages for delays caused by their own inaction or failure to meet contractual obligations, even if land acquisition delays occur.
The court upheld the binding nature of the contract, ruling that the Plaintiff's claims were untenable due to failure to exercise contractual options and were barred by limitation.
Point of law: When the appeal is presented in terms of Section 96 CPC and when this Court is considering this appeal not only as a last Court of fact but also in terms of law, it is open for the appe....
Contractual obligations regarding delayed construction projects must consider the contractor's contributions to delays and enforceability of claims under economic duress.
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....
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
