Facts 6:

2. That, Clause 27 of the agreement dated 25.03.2016 stipulates that the contractor must acquire the approval of bank for any change in material. 


3. That, the work of construction was started by the Respondent within 10 days from the receipt of the work order but, on 05.05.2016, the work was stopped by some officers of the Appellant. The Respondent vide letter dated 09.05.2016 informed the Appellant that some officers of the Appellant have directed the Respondent to stop the ongoing construction work and the Respondent had to stop the same. By virtue of the letter dated 09.05.2016, the Respondent requested the Appellant to sought out the matter at the earliest so that the work of construction can be resumed. Similar requests were made by the Appellant vide letters dated 18.05.2016 and 02.06.2016 subsequent to which the Project Architect vide letter dated 13.06.2016 directed the Respondent to start the construction work along with additional work of providing laying of underground new electric and Lan cables, etc and construction of sewer lines and sewer chambers. In response to the letter dated 13.06.2016, the Respondent replied to the Project Architect that the additional work is not covered under the scope of Contract and the execution of the additional work won't be possible for the Respondent.


4. That, despite numerous follow ups by the Respondent, the work of construction could not be started and accordingly on 06.08.2016, the Respondent wrote a letter to the Appellant concluding that due to continuous default on part of the Appellant, the work remained suspended for more than 90 days and therefore, the Respondent is entitled for determination of contract agreement and disbursement of payment of work already carried out in terms of clause 38 of the Agreement.


5. That, thereafter, several meetings in person were held between the parties but when no outcome could be ascertained, the Arbitration clause was invoked by both the parties after adjudication of which, the award in question dated 31.08.2018 was passed in favor of the Respondent.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Describe the citation of Chandra Kumar v. Union of India in brief ?

Ans: The larger issue before the Bench was whether the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal set up under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 would be amenable to challenge before High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It will be noted that when the concept of tribunalisation was upheld in L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India  that the Court had unequivocally opined that the orders passed by the Tribunals would be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of Indian Constitution.  x
Read more

Q: Describe the citation of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ?

Ans: Learned counsels fortified their arguments on the basis of observations in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India ,  more specifically in paragraph 42, where the Supreme Court held that the High Courts, under Article 226, have the power of judicial review even in respect of courts martial and the High Courts can grant appropriate relief if the said proceedings have resulted in denial of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or if the said proceedings suffer from a jurisdictional error or any error of law apparent on the face of the record. x
Read more

Q: Elaborate the relevancy of citation of Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987 with present case ?

Ans: Ranjit Thakur v. Union Of India And Others ,Supreme Court Of India, Oct 15, 1987 Appellant, Ranjit Thakur, joined the Armed Services on September 7, 1972, and was, at the relevant time, a Signalman in “4 Corps Operating Signal Regiment”. Apparently, appellant had not commended himself well to Respondent 4, who was the commanding officer of the regiment. On March 29, 1985, appellant was already serving out a sentence of 28 days' rigorous imprisonment imposed on him for violating the norms for presenting representations to higher officers. Appellant is stated to have sent representation complaining ill-treatment at the hands of Respondent 4 directly to the higher officers. Appellant was punished for that by Respondent 4. Army Act Section 41(2) Disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer In that he at 15.30 hrs. on May 29, 1985 when ordered by JC 106251-P Sub Ram Singh, the Orderly Officer of the same Regiment to eat his food, did not do so. To try this offence a su...
Read more