S. B. SINHA
Bharat Coking Coal LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Annapurna Construction – Respondent
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.-These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 29.4.1997 passed by the High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi in Appeal from Original Order No. 169 of 1995 (R) whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein from a judgment and order dated 3.6.1995 passed by the Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Dhanbad in Title (Arbitration) Suit No. 109 of 1994 was dismissed.
Facts :
2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The parties hereto entered into a contract for construction of 140 numbers of temporary hutments, the estimated cost of which was Rs. 49,45,447.81. A formal work order was issued to the respondent herein. Entire work in terms of the agreement was to be completed within a period of four months.
3. A formal contract was entered into for the aforementioned work by and between the parties. The said contract contained an arbitration agreement. The said contractual job was not allegedly completed by the respondent within the stipulated period wherefor a request was made for extension of time till 31.12.1986 to complete the work. Further extensions of time were sought for and granted from time to time.
4. Disputes and d
Satish Kumar v. Surinder Kumar
Associated Engineering v. Govt. of A.P.
M/s. Sudarsan Trading Co. v. The Govt. of Kerala
K.P. Poulose v. State of Kerala
In Union of India v. Jain Associates and Anr.
Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim
Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India
Naihati Jute Mills Ltd. v. Khyaliram Jagannath
State of Orissa v. Dandasi Sahu
K.V. George v. The Secretary to Government, Water and Power Dept, Tri-vendrum
Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Sterilite Industries (India) & Anr.
W.B. State Warehousing Corporation and Anr. v. Sushil Kumar Kayan & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.