REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

UNION OF INDIA Appellant

V/S

BUDHLANI ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

REX V. ALL SAINTS,SOUTHAMPTON [REFERRED TO]
FALKINGHAM V. VICTORIAN RAILWAYS COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
BUNGE AND CO. V. DEWAR AND WEBB [REFERRED TO]
MANITOBA V. KELLY [REFERRED TO]
F.R.ABSALOM LTD. V. GREAT WESTERN (LONDON) GARDEN VILLAGE. SOCIETY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
HEYMAN V. DARWINS LTD. [REFERRED TO]
M.GOLODETZ V. SCHRIER [REFERRED TO]
ANISMINIC LTD.V.FOREIGN COMPENSATION COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
LAING,SONS AND CO. LTD. V. EASTCHEAP DRIED FRUIT CO. [REFERRED TO]
REX V. FULHAM [REFERRED TO]
DALMIA DAIRY INDUSTRIES LTD. V. NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN [REFERRED TO]
CALCUTTA V. MAHALAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS [REFERRED TO]
GOBARDHAN DAS VS. LACHHMI RAM [REFERRED TO]
THAWARDAS FHERUMAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. KISHORILAL GUPTA AND BROS [REFERRED TO]
ALOPI PARSHAD AND SONS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
JIVARAJBHAI UJAMSHI SHETH VS. CHINTAPANRAO BALAJI [REFERRED TO]
M L SETHI VS. R P KAPUR [REFERRED TO]
RENUSAGAR POWER COMPANY LIMITED VS. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
PRASUN ROY VS. CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. R V RAYANIM [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR J AND K HANDICRAFTS JAMMU VS. GOOD LUCK CARPETS [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA VS. ENGINEERS DE SPACE AGE [REFERRED TO]
N G GUNANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
OMANHENE KOBINA FOLI VS. CHIEF OBENG AKESSEE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS letters patent appeal is at the instance of the Union of India and is directed against the order dated April 29, 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for setting aside the award passed by the Arbitrator.

(2.) THE respondent-contractor agreed to carry out a civil construction work worth Rs. 19,47,050/ -. The time-limit for completion of the work was fixed as one year from the date of awarding the contract. The work was to be completed by 10th February, 1990 but it was actually completed on 13th June, 1991 and as such, there was a delay of more than 16 months in completing the work. The claimant-contractor, after completion of the work, submitted bills and there was dispute with regard to the quantum of the final bill. The final bill was not paid for a long time despite repeated requests and representations.

(3.) ACCORDING to the respondent, it however, received part of such payment and the same was received under protest and without prejudice to its claim for further sum. The final payment was made when the respondent was forced to strike out the endorsement "with protest". The respondent apparently recorded full and final satisfaction and certificate of clearance of all dues. The respondent, however, contended that such endorsement was forced upon it by withholding the amount of the final bill.

Click here to view full judgment.

UNION OF INDIA Vs. BUDHLANI ENGINEERING PVT LTD

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address