Facts 7:

1. That the contents of para 1 of the Grounds of appeal are denied as the award in question has been passed after consideration of all the submissions made by Appellant as well as Respondent.

2. That, the contents of Para 2 of the grounds of the Appeal are denied being incorrect. The work of the Respondent was stopped by the officials of the Appellant on 05.05.2016 and vide letter dated 09.05.2016, the Respondent informed the Appellant to sort out the matter as soon as possible so that the work can be resumed. It was also stated in the letter that the Respondent shall not be held liable for any delay caused due to conduct of the Bank Officials. At this juncture it becomes pertinent to mention here that the construction work of the Respondent was stopped by the Appellant Officials due to use of different Brands of Building Material as mentioned in the tender documents and in this regard a letter dated 18.04.2016 was issued by the Project Architect of the Appellant to the Respondent asking to clarify the issue of usage of different Brands of Building material and further to ensure the quality and strength of the material by getting it tested at a government approved lab/ Bank approved Lab. The Respondent in reply to the letter dated 18.04.2016, informed the Project Architect vide letter dated 19.04.2016 clarifying the position that due to non-availability of specified cement brands in bulk in market due to cartelization of producers, the equivalent ISI mark Cement has been procured and even the Steel reinforcement has been procured of equivalent brands as the specified list of contract agreement allows use of equivalent brands of materials. It was also mentioned that approval of bank officials are must for any change in brand of materials.


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