w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ircon International Limited v/s C.R. Sons Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203DL1976GOI008171

Company & Directors' Information:- K N INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP2002PLC026841

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC049964

Company & Directors' Information:- S S A INTERNATIONAL LTD [Active] CIN = U15122DL1995PLC068186

Company & Directors' Information:- A T N INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65993WB1983PLC080793

Company & Directors' Information:- G. K. & SONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27101WB1973PTC028769

Company & Directors' Information:- D D INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB1995PTC016929

Company & Directors' Information:- T K INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55101OR1982PLC001092

Company & Directors' Information:- N R INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L74999WB1991PLC051738

Company & Directors' Information:- K J INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L15142PB1993PLC011274

Company & Directors' Information:- C L C AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1997PTC089214

Company & Directors' Information:- A K S INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1996PLC076327

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100WB1994PTC063228

Company & Directors' Information:- S. K. B. BUILDERS INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2010PLC197993

Company & Directors' Information:- B. K. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2006PTC157013

Company & Directors' Information:- R S C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = L17124RJ1993PLC007136

Company & Directors' Information:- J C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1999PLC089037

Company & Directors' Information:- M T L INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U24219UP2001PTC025965

Company & Directors' Information:- T C N S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U51311DL1996PTC080096

Company & Directors' Information:- K V S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL2003PTC120770

Company & Directors' Information:- G N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2001PTC110766

Company & Directors' Information:- B. L. & SONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PLC073710

Company & Directors' Information:- S H A M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1994PTC079867

Company & Directors' Information:- S B BUILDERS PVT LTD. [Active] CIN = U70101MH1988PTC272922

Company & Directors' Information:- M K INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1996PLC083430

Company & Directors' Information:- V. G. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101DL2007PTC162540

Company & Directors' Information:- D R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24132DL1996PTC079867

Company & Directors' Information:- R H INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2007PLC159452

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA BUILDERS CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA2006PTC039914

Company & Directors' Information:- G & G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120DL2012PTC234047

Company & Directors' Information:- A & D INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36109RJ2007PTC024176

Company & Directors' Information:- M G BUILDERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2013PTC055903

Company & Directors' Information:- K A I INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U13100OR2007PTC009647

Company & Directors' Information:- C G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1996PTC097577

Company & Directors' Information:- J J DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300WB1996PTC081491

Company & Directors' Information:- K C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PLC060402

Company & Directors' Information:- M P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29130MH1997PTC107943

Company & Directors' Information:- A S INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1993PLC056158

Company & Directors' Information:- S. D. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900UP2008PTC036047

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND I INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1995PTC072210

Company & Directors' Information:- L T INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1999PLC097892

Company & Directors' Information:- R E L BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102AP2007PTC055964

Company & Directors' Information:- L R BUILDERS PVT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC067771

Company & Directors' Information:- A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51102GJ2008PTC053840

Company & Directors' Information:- J A BUILDERS LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899DL1987PLC028050

Company & Directors' Information:- S J M INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52110DL1987PLC028571

Company & Directors' Information:- U S BUILDERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2013PTC197792

Company & Directors' Information:- S B S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1997PTC085878

Company & Directors' Information:- T T BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC131951

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51225DL2008PTC177405

Company & Directors' Information:- B G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50300PB2014PTC038889

Company & Directors' Information:- S F INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PB2000PTC023654

Company & Directors' Information:- I K INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066267

Company & Directors' Information:- C K INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC045625

Company & Directors' Information:- L A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB2010PTC033683

Company & Directors' Information:- H R V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899UP1993PTC057665

Company & Directors' Information:- C T BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101PB2002PTC025201

Company & Directors' Information:- K P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24110GJ2007PTC050026

Company & Directors' Information:- V S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85100MH1997PTC109647

Company & Directors' Information:- N N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01111DL1999PTC099094

Company & Directors' Information:- S R V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2012PTC243060

Company & Directors' Information:- J. T. BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2006PTC149607

Company & Directors' Information:- K D BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL1997PTC087003

Company & Directors' Information:- B G SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101UP1994PTC016493

Company & Directors' Information:- A. R. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH2010PTC228539

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC055562

Company & Directors' Information:- L N DEVELOPMENT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102ML1986PLC002590

Company & Directors' Information:- M J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC013231

Company & Directors' Information:- D N INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36911TN1996PLC034205

Company & Directors' Information:- M H BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC026488

Company & Directors' Information:- M. H. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102DL2007PTC164267

Company & Directors' Information:- M G M INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC013580

Company & Directors' Information:- M E I BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC055662

Company & Directors' Information:- J J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL1992PTC047657

Company & Directors' Information:- S K BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65910GJ1995PTC026680

Company & Directors' Information:- H D INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PLC060720

Company & Directors' Information:- K. A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101UP2012PTC049338

Company & Directors' Information:- J & G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18109DL2012PTC238392

Company & Directors' Information:- K R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291DL2008PTC172188

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999UP1965PTC003091

Company & Directors' Information:- S L BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC033077

Company & Directors' Information:- P H BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC037734

Company & Directors' Information:- J S AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1996PTC075597

Company & Directors' Information:- R SONS BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC052728

Company & Directors' Information:- S A P BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC139227

Company & Directors' Information:- B M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC048736

Company & Directors' Information:- S G INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1998PTC086547

Company & Directors' Information:- B N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15412WB1999PTC089316

Company & Directors' Information:- V A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01111DL2000PTC104712

Company & Directors' Information:- S. J. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27310DL2007PTC169438

Company & Directors' Information:- G. S. C. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29120MH1994PTC080380

Company & Directors' Information:- A J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC060818

Company & Directors' Information:- J S M INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110KA1996PLC020046

Company & Directors' Information:- N M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120MH2012PTC234492

Company & Directors' Information:- S S M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1997PTC089876

Company & Directors' Information:- A P J INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909HR2010PTC040304

Company & Directors' Information:- T. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL1997PTC091049

Company & Directors' Information:- V R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101UP2011PTC043952

Company & Directors' Information:- S R BUILDERS LTD [Active] CIN = U45203CH1992PLC012451

Company & Directors' Information:- M E C INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U33111GJ1963PTC082423

Company & Directors' Information:- J K INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01100MH2004PTC144492

Company & Directors' Information:- D. S. R. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2010PTC039954

Company & Directors' Information:- R B INTERNATIONAL LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101WB1993PLC059515

Company & Directors' Information:- P Y INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51102RJ1995PTC010133

Company & Directors' Information:- R C INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TG1991PLC012477

Company & Directors' Information:- I AND A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG1995PTC019936

Company & Directors' Information:- P V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1998PTC094598

Company & Directors' Information:- A.T. BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100CT2009PTC021517

Company & Directors' Information:- I B INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U72200DL2000PTC105735

Company & Directors' Information:- A M INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC066228

Company & Directors' Information:- Z. H. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21098MH2010PTC210735

Company & Directors' Information:- J R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909TN2002PTC048744

Company & Directors' Information:- S R I F BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U45202DL1996PTC083461

Company & Directors' Information:- L S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2009PTC193390

Company & Directors' Information:- B. E. BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102DL2007PTC164110

Company & Directors' Information:- M B INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U52190DL2001PTC110572

Company & Directors' Information:- BUILDERS INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201TN1977PLC007313

Company & Directors' Information:- O K R INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1996PTC077152

Company & Directors' Information:- B B C INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25209WB1984PTC037383

Company & Directors' Information:- B D SONS PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U67120PB1980PTC004326

Company & Directors' Information:- K S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909MH2001PTC134345

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51101TN1992PTC022507

Company & Directors' Information:- B M R BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101OR2010PTC011791

Company & Directors' Information:- K K BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC039555

Company & Directors' Information:- K C J SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22122DL2001PTC110679

Company & Directors' Information:- C H BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209PB2013PTC038109

Company & Directors' Information:- M L D & SONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U65993WB1984PTC037130

Company & Directors' Information:- S R M BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC051505

Company & Directors' Information:- K N M AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U92199TZ1975PTC000743

Company & Directors' Information:- C. R. BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200UP2007PTC033110

Company & Directors' Information:- Y AND R BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC070024

Company & Directors' Information:- C & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1982PTC026718

Company & Directors' Information:- A K BUILDERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45203MN1991PTC003601

Company & Directors' Information:- D P S DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202WB1988PTC044797

Company & Directors' Information:- P S BUILDERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201NL1989PTC003261

Company & Directors' Information:- D S V BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL1999PTC098326

Company & Directors' Information:- D A BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201PB1997PTC020415

Company & Directors' Information:- K G BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202UP1969PTC003269

Company & Directors' Information:- S V R BUILDERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45205KA2011PTC060841

Company & Directors' Information:- E AND A BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TZ1995PTC006000

Company & Directors' Information:- J S INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51900MH1982PTC027604

Company & Directors' Information:- B P BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2008PTC121741

Company & Directors' Information:- A C INDIA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC034784

Company & Directors' Information:- M. T. BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201AS2009PTC009122

Company & Directors' Information:- B R AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26943RJ1983PTC002724

Company & Directors' Information:- S G BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC042974

Company & Directors' Information:- M. G. SONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101GJ2016PLC093903

Company & Directors' Information:- M. G. SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101GJ2016PTC093903

Company & Directors' Information:- R. R. BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP1995PTC017748

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA INTERNATIONAL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51228MH1955PTC009483

Company & Directors' Information:- G A BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1996PTC101172

Company & Directors' Information:- C K R BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TZ2015PTC021602

Company & Directors' Information:- G D AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120UP2000PTC025457

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND H BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP1995PTC019089

Company & Directors' Information:- M K BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1985PTC022195

Company & Directors' Information:- A V A BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2006PTC153695

Company & Directors' Information:- A R BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC043507

Company & Directors' Information:- DEVELOPMENT CORPN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U13209WB1939PTC009750

Company & Directors' Information:- P D BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209WB2000PTC092173

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U63040PB1982PTC004926

Company & Directors' Information:- M J BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U70100MH1980PTC023374

Company & Directors' Information:- U G BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL1984PTC017921

Company & Directors' Information:- K L SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120UP1993PTC015414

Company & Directors' Information:- R S BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24231UP1989PTC010498

Company & Directors' Information:- L & P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52100DL2016PTC292025

Company & Directors' Information:- D. C. BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109DL1996PTC080902

Company & Directors' Information:- L K SONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U21012PB1980PTC004226

Company & Directors' Information:- V S BUILDERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201CH1993PTC013278

Company & Directors' Information:- G D S BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201OR2008PTC009959

Company & Directors' Information:- C. S. BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2011PTC219467

Company & Directors' Information:- E. V. BUILDERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U45202MH2010PTC198479

Company & Directors' Information:- O N BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U45400DL2007PTC171085

Company & Directors' Information:- R B N INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52300DL2012PTC243998

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND T BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KL2004PTC017143

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U24100OR1993PTC003244

Company & Directors' Information:- S S BUILDERS (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1981PTC011552

Company & Directors' Information:- B K BUILDERS PVT LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U70200WB1989PTC046943

Company & Directors' Information:- E C INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1982PTC013146

Company & Directors' Information:- A P BUILDERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101OR1995PTC003817

Company & Directors' Information:- K S BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1985PTC020747

Company & Directors' Information:- S N BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201PB1991PTC011027

Company & Directors' Information:- M E C BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1972PTC016083

Company & Directors' Information:- D B BUILDERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70109WB1989PTC046772

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC059040

Company & Directors' Information:- B SONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22110DL1997PTC090730

Company & Directors' Information:- L & D BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209PB2010PTC033579

Company & Directors' Information:- R C AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC061275

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA BUILDERS LTD [Under Liquidation] CIN = U45400WB1954PLC021804

Company & Directors' Information:- F SONS PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51900WB1982PTC035114

Company & Directors' Information:- C.R & D CO. (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [Under Liquidation] CIN = U36991WB1979PTC031882

Company & Directors' Information:- M P SONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70109WB1958PTC023796

Company & Directors' Information:- R S BUILDERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45220PB1988PTC008282

Company & Directors' Information:- F C BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45200KL2012PTC032186

Company & Directors' Information:- M M INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD [Converted to LLP] CIN = U51312DL1977PTC008583

Company & Directors' Information:- R G BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1973PTC016879

Company & Directors' Information:- D. L. BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2008PTC187771

Company & Directors' Information:- P M BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2005PTC150517

Company & Directors' Information:- S L V BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG1997PTC027762

Company & Directors' Information:- T B BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101AS2002PTC006780

Company & Directors' Information:- S & S BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201JH2012PTC000236

Company & Directors' Information:- T K BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC036793

Company & Directors' Information:- G G BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U70100DL2011PTC217636

Company & Directors' Information:- N. D. AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01100CT2020PTC009997

Company & Directors' Information:- M P BUILDERS LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210WB1955PLC022613

Company & Directors' Information:- S A K SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52110TZ1985PTC001637

Company & Directors' Information:- A K INDIA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1981PTC012389

Company & Directors' Information:- S K R BUILDERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201CH1988PTC008761

Company & Directors' Information:- K V BUILDERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70102MH1969PTC014396

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND A BUILDERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45209CH1987PTC007331

Company & Directors' Information:- S. C. M. BUILDERS PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1995PTC069004

Company & Directors' Information:- D & J BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1999PTC090699

Company & Directors' Information:- S G BUILDERS PVT LTD [Not available for efiling] CIN = U45201PB1990PTC010662

Company & Directors' Information:- G C AND SONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U72100ML1987PTC002697

Company & Directors' Information:- N M BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1985PTC022814

Company & Directors' Information:- S R G BUILDERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45203DL1984PTC017780

Company & Directors' Information:- R K BUILDERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202KL2006PTC020079

Company & Directors' Information:- G N BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC032547

Company & Directors' Information:- I C B R BUILDERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1982PTC013131

Company & Directors' Information:- K R BUILDERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201PB1981PTC004406

Company & Directors' Information:- B S BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2001PTC111390

Company & Directors' Information:- V S BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201GJ1982PTC005647

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND A BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201KL1996PTC010546

Company & Directors' Information:- K R V BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TN2011PTC082953

Company & Directors' Information:- P S BUILDERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101DL1982PTC014512

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND M BUILDERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201GJ1988PTC010258

Company & Directors' Information:- S C SONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1924PTC004937

Company & Directors' Information:- S M P BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202MH2009PTC193614

Company & Directors' Information:- K B BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24231UP1983PTC005964

Company & Directors' Information:- J V & SONS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51420WB1988PTC044171

Company & Directors' Information:- G R BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC031739

Company & Directors' Information:- H B BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201GJ1995PTC024972

Company & Directors' Information:- M L BUILDERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45202CH1982PTC005046

Company & Directors' Information:- S K BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TG1994PTC018761

Company & Directors' Information:- O P INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U55101PB2013PTC037499

Company & Directors' Information:- J & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51900PB2013PTC037302

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND Y BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN2008PTC066937

Company & Directors' Information:- V A BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN2015PTC099281

Company & Directors' Information:- Y. A. INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900RJ2012PTC040431

Company & Directors' Information:- I S BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201MH2001PTC133305

Company & Directors' Information:- B R BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109MH2002PTC135762

Company & Directors' Information:- J BUILDERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45200MH1982PTC027086

Company & Directors' Information:- D & A INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2015PTC262713

Company & Directors' Information:- G & J BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TG2007PTC053751

Company & Directors' Information:- R L INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18204UP2016PTC076344

Company & Directors' Information:- V P S INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93030UP2014PTC066242

Company & Directors' Information:- BUILDERS CORPN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U26921WB1959PTC024088

Company & Directors' Information:- DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70109WB1958PTC023874

Company & Directors' Information:- M V S BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00500CH2006PTC029493

Company & Directors' Information:- M R V BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209DL2012PTC239946

Company & Directors' Information:- R P BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC033203

Company & Directors' Information:- N S BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200DL2015PTC285443

Company & Directors' Information:- J V INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51102DL2012PTC240197

Company & Directors' Information:- S R L INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U20296AP2013PTC085533

Company & Directors' Information:- A D N BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400KL2014PTC036925

Company & Directors' Information:- M D BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201GJ1985PTC008103

Company & Directors' Information:- N J K BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KL1998PTC012440

Company & Directors' Information:- P. V. AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74993GJ2018PTC101181

Company & Directors' Information:- K V M AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U19113TZ1955PTC000074

Company & Directors' Information:- V I BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201RJ2000PTC016187

Company & Directors' Information:- H H BUILDERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210OR1988PTC001970

Company & Directors' Information:- M D INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140MH1981PTC025007

Company & Directors' Information:- R K SONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1951PTC001975

Company & Directors' Information:- N A BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200DL2006PTC156402

Company & Directors' Information:- M N BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200DL2006PTC156687

Company & Directors' Information:- N Y BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200DL2007PTC164581

Company & Directors' Information:- G O C BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101KL2006PTC019126

Company & Directors' Information:- D C M INTERNATIONAL LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL2000PTC004208

    O.M.P. No. 353 of 2009

    Decided On, 11 February 2020

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

    For the Petitioner: Chandan Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ankit Jain, Advocate.



Judgment Text


1. By way of this petition, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], the petitioner [hereinafter referred to as “IRCON”] seeks setting aside of an arbitral award dated 10.02.2009. By the impugned award, a sole arbitrator adjudicated various claims and counter-claims raised by the parties under a construction contract dated 17.08.2004. After adjusting the amount awarded on the counter-claims raised by IRCON, the arbitrator awarded a net sum of Rs.17,74,332/- in favour of the respondent No.1 herein [hereinafter referred to as “CRS”].

Background

2. By way of the contract dated 17.08.2004, CRS was to construct an office building for IRCON. An arbitration clause was included in a supplementary agreement dated 02.06.2006. CRS invoked arbitration and raised twelve claims before the arbitrator. Mr. S.P. Mehta, former General Manager of Northern Railways, was appointed as the sole arbitrator, impleaded as respondent No.2 herein. During the course of proceedings, IRCON also filed a counter-claim enumerating nine claims.

3. In the present petition, Mr. Chandan Kumar, learned counsel for IRCON, has confined his arguments to challenging claim nos. 1 and 3, awarded in favour of CRS. By way of claim no.1, CRS made a claim of Rs.22,41,192/- [plus interest] on account of “unjustified recovery of excavated earth”. The arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.2,24,119/- and interest of Rs.67,235/- on this account. In claim no.3, on account of escalation, CRS claimed Rs.29,22,685.89/- [plus interest at the rate of 18% per annum], of which the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- and interest in the sum of Rs.2,60,000/-. Each of these claims, and the validity of the challenge thereto, are discussed in turn hereinbelow.

Claim No.1

Facts:

4. Claim no. 1 raised by CRS arises out of excavation work upon the ground area. CRS was entitled to be paid at the rate of Rs.123.69 per cubic meter for this work, provided in item 1.01 of the bill of quantities [“BOQ”] in the following terms:-

“Earth work in excavation over areas (exceeding 300mm depth 1.5m in width as well as 10 sqm. in plan) including disposal of excavated earth, outside District Centre Saket, New Delhi to any other approved dumping area and lift upto 1.5m disposed earth to be levelled and neatly dressed. The rate provided was Rs.123.69/M3subjected to agreed tender %age of 5.5% above, coming to Rs. 130.49/M3.”

5. However, item 1.03 of BOQ provided that the value of the excavated earth would be credited to the account of IRCON at the rate of Rs.79.55 per cubic meter:-

“Credit for cost of excavated earth which will become property of contractor.....

Rate Rs.79.55 and with Tender % above comes to Rs.83.92.”

6. The claim of CRS was that IRCON had unlawfully deducted the value of the excavated earth from the amount due to it under item 1.01 of the BOQ. It was contended that the excavated earth was not the property of IRCON at all, as it held the plot on leasehold basis, and had no authority to sell the excavated earth. It was further contended that the engineers of the Delhi Development Authority [“DDA”], which was the owner of the plot, did not permit CRS to remove the excavated material from the plot in question. CRS referred to letters dated 03.09.2004, 15.09.2004 and 20.09.2004, by which IRCON was asked to obtain the necessary permission from DDA. CRS also contended that the contractual position was, in these circumstances, inapplicable, unless IRCON had issued a certificate that the earth excavated was its property, and had been sold to CRS. In fact, by letter dated 26.02.2005, IRCON asked DDA for permission to sell the excavated material, but did not receive any response. IRCON, however, continued to assert the applicability of item 1.03 of the BOQ, and ultimately deducted the amount due thereunder from the bill by CRS.

7. In the impugned award, the claim has been adjudicated as follows:-

“ xxxx xxxx xxxx

4.3.3 Respondent’s argument that construction activities were started almost simultaneously and that owner of any of the few empty plots would not allow dumping of earth in his premises which he has to remove before starting construction on his own plot, seems to make sense. Claimant’s plea that he disposed the earth by putting in low lying areas does not appear to be convincing as he could sell this earth to other builders or to the excavating sub-contractor, which is a normal practice. Knowing well that he had to give credit to the Respondent for the excavated earth which became his property under BOQ item 1.03, it is unbelievable to accept that the Claimant would throw away the earth unutilized and run the risk of losing money by not operating BOQ item 1.03 without any written or even verbal instruction from the Respondent to this effect.

4.3.4 It is a fact that the Respondent was not able to furnish any letter/authority to the Claimant to the effect that the earth was his property and he could dispose it of in any manner. In the absence of clear permission to take away the earth, the Claimant would have suffered some loss in not getting optimum amount for the disposal of the earth and would also have wasted time and resources in keeping at bay the unscrupulous elements in DDA and local Police.

4.3.5 AWARD: Although strictly speaking, nothing becomes payable to the Claimant under the Contract as discussed in para 4.3.3 above, yet considering that the Respondent has also not fulfilled his obligation in getting/giving authority/permission to take away the excavated earth resulting in hindered working and loss to the Claimant as discussed in para 4.3.4 above, it is felt that a nominal award equal to 10% of the claimed amount is justified. An amount of Rs.2,24,119 is hereby awarded against claim no.1. As the Claimant incurred this loss about 3 years back, the interest payable @ 10% p.a. works out to Rs.67,235/-.

xxxx xxxx xxxx”

Submissions:

8. The principal argument of Mr. Kumar was that the ad-hoc award of 10% of the claim amount by the arbitrator was unjustified. He submitted that the arbitrator has returned a clear finding that nothing was payable to CRS under this claim, and the award, being inconsistent with this finding, is unsupported by evidence. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P. Poulose vs. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1259 (paragraph 5).

9. Mr. Ankit Jain, learned counsel for CRS, drew my attention to paragraph 4.3.4 of the award, wherein the arbitrator has held that CRS would have suffered some loss as a result of IRCON’s inability to obtain permission to sell off the excavated earth. He therefore characterized the award, on this account, as an award of damages to compensate for the loss suffered. He argued, with reference to the grounds taken in the petition, that IRCON had not challenged the finding that some loss would have been incurred, and had also not disputed the quantification. In these circumstances, Mr. Jain urged that the award of an expert arbitrator ought not to be interfered with. He cited the decisions of this Court in Delhi Development Authority vs. Madan Construction Co. (2008) 1 Arb. L.R. 499 and IRCON International Limited vs. Arvind Construction Company Limited & Anr. (1999) 81 DLT 268.

Analysis:

10. On a holistic reading of the above extracted portion of the impugned award, I am of the view that Mr. Jain’s submissions deserve acceptance. The finding in paragraph 4.3.4 of the award attributes some responsibility to IRCON, as a result of which CRS would, according to the arbitrator, have suffered a loss. The observation in paragraph 4.3.5 of the award, that nothing becomes payable to CRS under the contract, is qualified by reference to the findings in paragraph 4.3.4. The arbitrator has analyzed the factual position in the context of the correspondence placed before him, including the inability of IRCON to furnish CRS with authority to remove the excavated material. The arbitrator being a retired official of the Railways, his award on these technical aspects is entitled to considerable deference in terms of the judgments cited by Mr. Jain. The judgments of this Court in Madan Construction (supra) (paragraph 9) and IRCON International (supra) (paragraph 10) cited by Mr. Jain are clear on this point. Mr. Jain is also justified in submitting that the factual finding of the arbitrator (viz. that IRCON had not fulfilled its obligation which would have led to CRS suffering some loss) has not been challenged. Ground ‘C’ of the petition is the only ground which deals specifically with claim no. 1. The only contention raised is of the inconsistency between the observations of the arbitrator and his ultimate award, which contention I have already dealt with hereinabove.

11. The judgment of the Supreme Court in K.P. Poulose (supra), cited by Mr. Kumar, deals with a somewhat different situation. On a construction of the award that was challenged in that case, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the observations contained in the award “cannot be anything but rationally inconsistent”, and therefore set aside the award under Section 30(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. In the present case, in contrast, the award on claim no. 1 is consistent with the findings of the arbitrator in paragraph 4.3.4 of the award. The analysis in paragraph 4.3.5 of the award, as I read it, is an attempt to reconcile the competing factors discussed by the arbitrator in paragraphs 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 of the award. The language employed is perhaps not that of one versed in law, but the rationalization is nonetheless clear and unimpeachable under Section 34 of the Act. An award must be read as a whole; the purpose of binding arbitration with relatively narrow grounds for setting aside an award would be defeated if the unsuccessful party is permitted to draw upon isolated observations in the award to infer inconsistencies and infirmities.

Conclusion:

12. I am therefore of the view that, on a holistic reading of the award, claim no. 1 thereof is not liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Act.

Claim No.3

Facts:

13. Claim no. 3 raised by CRS was for payment for escalation. The claim of Rs.29,22,685.89/- (and interest thereupon at the rate 18% p.a.) has been partly allowed- the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- plus Rs. 2,60,000/- as interest.

14. The factual background regarding this claim is that the letter of intent was awarded in July, 2004; the agreement entered into in August, 2004 (followed by a supplementary agreement dated 18.11.2005); and although extensions were granted until September, 2006, the work was completed only in December, 2006. The arbitration clause had been invoked in the meantime on 05.06.2006.

15. The arbitrator’s discussion and award on this claim are as follows: -

“xxxx xxxx xxxx

6.3.1 It is a fact that the Agreement did not provide for escalation as the period of construction was only 9 months and escalation is normally provided in Railway Contracts when period of construction is more than a year. The position, however, changed with the abnormal delay of 7 months in the receipt of approval of drawing from DDA. For this initial delay of 7 months also there is no dispute, as the Claimant had volunteered to accept it without any compensation even before the award of the contract and it was made a part of the letter of acceptance.

6.3.2 The problem arose when the work could not be completed within 9 months after the receipt of approval from DDA i.e. up to 18.11.05.

Claimant is attributing this delay to receipt of drawings without structural details for upper basement, staircase, electrical conduits in lower and upper basement, ramps as well as staircase and plumbing works in basement area, frequent changes and a number of revisions in the drawing and delayed decisions by the Respondent. He had requested for further extension beyond 18.11.05, without penalty and with escalation.

6.3.3 To sort out further extension, a supplementary agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent was drawn on 18.11.05 in which the completion date was extended to 08.03.06. the main feature of the Supplementary Agreement was that no escalation would be payable. The Claimant pleads that this supplementary agreement was signed under undue influence, as a large amount of his was pending with the Respondent. He stated that it was tantamount to coercion and the supplementary agreement should be considered as void. There is force in the Claimant’s argument that the Respondent being in a position of strength, could use undue influence in adding an unfair clause that no escalation would be payable during the extended period of completion. It could be considered alright if the delay was due to lapses on the part of the Claimant, but is absolutely unfair if no escalation is to be paid even if the delay is on account of the Respondent himself.

6.3.4 The respondent stated that the allegation of signing the supplementary agreement under duress/ coercion is baseless. He also argued that deciding the allegation of coercion was beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and should be decided by a Court of Law. The Claimant cited judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in KN Sathyapalan Vs State of Kerala (2006-4 Arb. LR 275 – SC) in which it was held that the Arbitrator was within his jurisdiction in allowing some of the claims on account of escalation of costs, although as per supplementary agreement, the Claimant was not entitled to enhanced rates during the extended period.

6.3.5 The Respondent attributed the delay in completion of the work to lack of induction of enough resources of men and material. He stated that the Claimant had employed much less men than claimed and had not arranged 5000 sqm of shuttering that was committed by him in the contract. He also stated that there was no delay on account of drawings and their revision after 30.05.05.

6.3.6 The Claimant has submitted hindrance chart showing the delays at different stages. He has also argued that he had been giving reasons for delays in the applications seeking extensions in time and hardly any delay was on his own count. All the extensions were granted without refuting any reason and no liquidated damages was levied at any stage. As such, as per legal position even if nothing is payable on account of escalation during the original contract period as the escalation clause does not exist, yet in case the work gets delayed for reasons not attributed to him, he is entitled to payment of escalation for the period of delay.

6.3.7 This is a case which is neither black nor white, as the Claimant and the Respondent are both responsible for the delay in the completion of work. It is difficult to apportion exact amount of delay on the part of each of them and I assess half the delay on the part of each of them. This being the position, it will be just and fair if half the amount payable on account of escalation is paid to the Claimant. Further, no escalation is payable for the 7 months period of delay in getting approval from DDA (which was agreed to by the Claimant even before the issuance of letter of acceptance) and also for the period from 1.10.06 to the actual date of completion as the Claimant did not even apply for any extension beyond 30.09.06. I consider that the loss caused to the Respondent due to half the delay in completion caused by the Claimant in the shape of loss of rent/interest on capital and engagement of resources for a longer time, would get nullified by the loss due to half the delay in completion caused by the Respondent in the shape of loss of opportunity, wastage of resources and blockage of capital etc. But the loss caused to the Claimant due to non payment of escalation in the market rates as linked to RBI index should not be denied for the period of delay not attributable to him.

6.3.8 AWARD: Against the amount of Rs.29,22,685 claimed by the Claimant, the Respondent has verified (without prejudice to his stand for non eligibility of any amount) an amount of Rs. 26,00,000 after disallowing the escalation considered by the claimant for some NS items where payment was already made on market rate and for calculation mistakes etc. An amount equal to half of Rs.26,00,000 i.e. Rs.13,00,000 is therefore awarded against claim no.3. It will also attract an interest @ 10% p.a. for a period of 2 years. Interest works out to Rs.2,60,000.

xxxx xxxx xxxx”

16. IRCON’s challenge to this award is based upon clause 5 of the supplementary agreement dated 18.11.2005, which is set out below: -

“5. For execution of the works, the contractor shall be paid only as per BOQ & agreed rates in the original agreement without any escalation/price variation.”

Submissions:

17. Mr. Kumar submitted that, in the face of clause 5 of the supplementary agreement, the arbitrator’s conclusion is contrary to the contractual provisions. He also argued that the finding of undue influence in entering into the said supplementary agreement, reflected in paragraph 6.3.3 of the award, is unsupported by evidence and therefore liable to be set aside. In fact, Mr.Kumar also drew my attention to the statement of claim filed by CRS before the arbitrator to argue that the claim was not based upon the allegation of coercion or undue influence, but on the basis that the delay on account of IRCON entitles CRS to escalation in the absence of a contrary contractual provision.

18. In addition to clause 5 of the supplementary agreement, Mr.Kumar also drew my attention to paragraph 49.5 of the General Conditions of Contract [“GCC”], which reads as follows: -

“49.5 Delays due to Employer/Engineer

In the event of any failure or delay by the Employer/Engineer in fulfilling his obligations under the contract, then such failure or delay, shall in no way affect or vitiate the contract or alter the character thereof; or entitle the Contractor to damages or compensation thereof but in any such case, the Engineer shall grant such extension or extensions of time to complete the work, as in his opinion is / are reasonable.”

The argument advanced, relying upon this provision, was that any delay or failure on part of IRCON entitled CRS only to extension of time and not to payment of escalation.

19. Mr. Kumar cited several authorities in support of his contention, including State of Orissa vs. Sudhakar Das (Dead) by LRs (2000) 3 SCC 27, Alopi Parshad and Sons Limited vs. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 588, Airport Authority of India vs. Hotel Leelaventure Ltd. (2016) 231 DLT 457 and S.K. Jain vs. State of Haryana and Another (2009) 4 SCC 357, which will be discussed later in this judgment.

20. Mr. Jain supported the impugned award contending that even in the face of a general prohibition to the grant of escalation in favour of a contractor, an award of escalation is permissible in certain circumstances. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.N. Sathyapalan (Dead) by LRs vs. State of Kerela and Another (2007) 13 SCC 43, and Assam State Electricity Board and Others vs. Buildworth Private Limited (2017) 8 SCC 146, and of this Court in M/s Deconar Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Thermal Power Corporation 2009 SCC OnLine Del 4108 [O.M.P. 254/2000, decided on 16.12.2009].

21. Mr. Jain contended that an extension of time under a contract, such as the present one, with no provision of liquidated damages, penalty etc., itself indicates that the delay was on the part of the employer rather than the contractor. Mr. Jain relied upon Sh.Bharat Lal vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1310 [O.M.P. 327/2003, decided on 25.03.2010] and Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation vs. Mohan Construction Company 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11832 [O.M.P. 410/2007, decided on 02.09.2015], in this connection. He cited the judgment in Deconar Services (supra) to submit that the apportionment of responsibility between the parties, in respect of the delay in the implementation of the contract, is also a matter within the province of the arbitrator.

22. With regard to the contention of undue influence, Mr. Jain relied upon National Insurance Company Limited vs. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited (2009) 1 SCC 267 and Chairman And MD, NTPC Ltd. vs. Reshmi Constructions, Builders & Contractors (2004) 2 SCC 663, to argue that the finding was not beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. He submitted that the finding being one of fact, it could not be reopened under Section 34 of the Act. In support of this contention, Mr. Jain referred to the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Synergy Steels Ltd. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8426 [O.M.P 879/2012, decided on 01.05.2019]. He also drew my attention to the grounds of challenge in the present petition where, according to him, IRCON has not challenged the findings of the arbitrator at all. He therefore submitted that the argument on this ground ought not to be considered. For this purpose, learned counsel relied upon The National Highway Authority of India vs. AFCONS-APIL Joint Venture (2018) 248 DLT 379, NITTY Construction Company & Anr vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [FAO(OS) 369/2011, decided on 20.09.2011] and National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Wig Brothers Builders Engineers Ltd. (2009) 160 DLT 642.

Analysis:

23. In the light of these arguments, the first question to be considered is whether the arbitrator’s finding in paragraph 6.3.3 of the award, that the supplementary agreement was vitiated by undue influence exercised by IRCON, is required to be set aside.

24. Having gone through the statement of claim filed by CRS before the arbitrator, I find that the contention was expressly taken particularly in paragraphs 3.11 to 3.17 of the statement of claim. Paragraphs 3.11, 3.12, 3,16 and 3.17 are particularly relevant and read as follows: -

“xxxx xxxx xxxx

3.11 There upon the Respondents called us for a meeting on 17.11.2005 and 18.11.2005 (the day the extension was to expire) and threatened us that either you agree to extension without escalation, otherwise the Respondents will impose liquidated damages, which amounted to a penalty on Claimants of over Rs.30 lakhs, and under this threat, which amounted to coercion and undue influence, against our free consent got signed a Supplementary Agreement. A copy of this Supplementary Agreement is filed at (Annexure C-28).

3.12 A critical reading of this Supplementary Agreement will prove our contention as mentioned in para 3.11 above. The Supplementary Agreement talks of mutual commercial interest. What commercial interest? The claimant was threatened with Liquidated Damages of over Rs.30 lakhs and certainly this is not the commercial interest of claimant. Of course, there was commercial interest of the Respondents i.e. to save themselves of escalation claim.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

3.16 This attracts clause 14 of Indian Contract Act (copy filed at Annexure C-29) where free consent is defined. Any agreement contravening the Indian Contract Act is void and can not be enforced. The Supplementary Agreement attracts sub clauses of coercion and undue influence of clause 14 of the Indian Contract Act.

3.17 Thus, Supplementary Agreement, is thus illegal, void, and cannot be enforced, meaning thereby the Claimants are fully entitled to escalation claim notwithstanding the illegal Supplementary Agreement dated 18.11.2005.

xxxx xxxx xxxx”

Mr. Kumar’s argument, that the claim of CRS on this account was not based on undue influence, is therefore rejected.

25. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Boghara Polyfab (supra) (paragraph 21) makes it clear that adjudication of a claim of this nature is within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The peculiar dynamics that may arise from transactions between a public sector undertaking and a contractor have been noticed in Chairman And MD, NTPC (supra) cited by Mr. Jain. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court are as follows-

“xxxx xxxx xxxx

27. Even when rights and obligations of the parties are worked out, the contract does not come to an end inter alia for the purpose of determination of the disputes arising thereunder, and, thus, the arbitration agreement can be invoked. Although it may not be strictly in place but we cannot shut our eyes to the ground reality that in a case where a contractor has made huge investment, he cannot afford not to take from the employer the amount under the bills, for various reasons which may include discharge of his liability towards the banks, financial institutions and other persons. In such a situation, the public sector undertakings would have an upper hand. They would not ordinarily release the money unless a “No-Demand Certificate” is signed. Each case, therefore, is required to be considered on its own facts.

28. Further, necessitas non habet legem is an age-old maxim which means necessity knows no law. A person may sometimes have to succumb to the pressure of the other party to the bargain who is in a stronger position.

xxxx xxxx xxxx”

(Emphasis supplied)

26. The above extracted portions of the statement of claim lay the foundation for a similar argument- CRS claims that the supplementary agreement was entered into in the face of a threat that liquidated damages would be imposed by IRCON. The arbitrator’s finding in paragraph 6.3.3 of the award cannot, in these circumstances, be held to be wholly devoid of substance or set aside on any of the grounds under Section 34 of the Act. The judgment of this Court in Synergy Steels (supra) (paragraphs 9 to 11) also supports this conclusion. [The judgment cited by Mr. Jain is of a Coordinate Bench of this Court, which has also been affirmed in appeal – National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Synergy Steels Ltd. [(FAO(OS) 196/2019, decided on 30.09.2019)].

27. One of the judgments cited by Mr. Kumar, S.K. Jain (supra) (paragraph 8), appears to strike a different note to Chairman And MD, NTPC (supra). Paragraph 8 of S.K. Jain (supra) is reproduced below: -

“8. It is to be noted that the plea relating to unequal bargaining power was made with great emphasis based on certain observations made by this Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly [(1986) 3 SCC 156 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 429 : (1986) 1 ATC 103] . The said decision does not in any way assist the appellant, because at para 89 it has been clearly stated that the concept of unequal bargaining power has no application in case of commercial contracts.”

In my view, the above extracted paragraph in S.K. Jain (supra) was only by way of distinguishing Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly (1986) 3 SCC 156, which had been cited before the Court. It does not lay down anything contrary to the observations in Chairman And MD, NTPC (supra).

28. In any event, Mr. Jain is also justified in his submission that IRCON has not challenged this finding at all in the present petition. Only two of the nine grounds urged deal particularly in respect to claim no. 3.The grounds read as follows: -

“xxxx xxxx xxxx

D. Because the Hon’ble Arbitrator further mis-conducted himself when, while dealing with Claim No.3 and Counter Claim Nos. 2 and 3, he found that both the Applicant and Respondent No.1 were responsible for delay in the ratio of 50:50, yet he allowed claim only of the Respondent No.1. After he had established a fact, its application should have been equal upon the parties. He could not have applied two yardsticks after such finding of facts. This also violates established legal principle that law applies equally to all.

E. Without prejudice, award of claim no.3 has been in violation of the contract and the supplementary agreement dated 18.11.2005, which prohibited escalation / price variation.

xxxx xxxx xxxx”

29. It is clear therefrom that there is no specific challenge to the arbitrator’s finding that coercion and undue influence vitiated the supplementary agreement.

30. On the aforesaid finding, the provision of the supplementary agreement restricting CRS’s entitlement to escalation is itself of no assistance to IRCON.

31. Even on the assumption that the supplementary agreement binds the parties, I am of the view that the award of escalation in the present case cannot be held to be beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. The judgments in Alopi Parshad (supra) and Sudhakar Das (supra) do lay down in general terms that escalation cannot be granted in the absence of a provision entitling the contractor to the same. However, the facts of the present case are much closer to the judgment in K.N. Sathyapalan (supra) cited by Mr. Jain. Significantly, the judgment in Alopi Parshad (supra) was specifically considered and discussed by the Court. In K.N. Sathyapalan (supra) also, extensions of time were granted to in favour of the claimant/contractor. Although the original agreement did not contain such a clause, a supplemental agreement included a clause restricting the contractor’s entitlement to the agreed rates without enhancement. In that case too, the contractor took the position that it had no option but to sign the supplemental agreement. The arbitrator’s award on account of escalation was set aside by the High Court as being outside the terms of the contract. The Supreme Court reversed this judgment and restored the award on the following reasoning: -

“xxxx xxxx xxxx

18. Admittedly, the original agreement did not contain a clause for escalation of rates. On the other hand, the supplemental agreement contained a specific provision that the contractor would carry out all further works within the extended period at the rates and in the manner agreed to in the agreement and would not claim any enhanced rate for such item of work on account of the extension of time either due to the increase in the rate of labour or materials or on any other ground whatsoever. The High Court took the view that although the arbitrator had come to a finding that the appellant had to execute the supplemental agreement under the force of circumstances, there was no material before the arbitrator in support of such contention. On such finding also, the High Court held that the arbitrator had acted beyond his jurisdiction in allowing Claim (g).

xxxx xxxx xxxx

31. The question which we are called upon to answer in the instant appeal is whether in the absence of any price escalation clause in the original agreement and a specific prohibition to the contrary in the supplemental agreement, the appellant could have made any claim on account of escalation of costs and whether the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing such claims as had been found by the High Court.

32. Ordinarily, the parties would be bound by the terms agreed upon in the contract, but in the event one of the parties to the contract is unable to fulfil its obligations under the contract which has a direct bearing on the work to be executed by the other party, the arbitrator is vested with the authority to compensate the second party for the extra costs incurred by him as a result of the failure of the first party to live up to its obligations. That is the distinguishing feature of cases of this nature and Alopi Parshad case [(1960) 2 SCR 793 : AIR 1960 SC 588] and also Patel Engg. case [(2004) 10 SCC 566]. As was pointed out by Mr Dave, the said principle was recognised by this Court in P.M. Paul [1989 Supp (1) SCC 368] where a reference was made to a retired Judge of this Court to fix responsibility for the delay in construction of the building and the repercussions of such delay. Based on the findings of the learned Judge, this Court gave its approval to the excess amount awarded by the arbitrator on account of increase in price of materials and costs of labour and transport during the extended period of the contract, even in the absence of any esc

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

alation clause. The said principle was reiterated by this Court in T.P. George case [(2001) 2 SCC 758]. 33. We have intentionally set out the background in which the arbitrator made his award in order to examine the genuineness and/or validity of the appellant's claim under those heads which had been allowed by the arbitrator. It is quite apparent that the appellant was prevented by unforeseen circumstances from completing the work within the stipulated period of eleven months and that such delay could have been prevented had the State Government stepped in to maintain the law and order problem which had been created at the worksite. It is also clear that the rubble and metal, which should have been available at the departmental quarry at Mannady, had to be obtained from quarries which were situated at double the distance, and even more, resulting in doubling of the transportation charges. Even the space for dumping of excess earth was not provided by the respondents which compelled the appellant to dump the excess earth at a place which was faraway from the worksite entailing extra costs for the same. 34. In the aforesaid circumstances, the arbitrator appears to have acted within his jurisdiction in allowing some of the claims on account of escalation of costs which was referable to the execution of the work during the extended period. In our judgment, the view taken by the High Court was on a rigid interpretation of the terms of contract and the supplemental agreement executed between the parties, which was not warranted by the turn of events. 35. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the award made by the arbitrator. xxxx xxxx xxxx” The judgment in Assam State Electricity Board (supra) (paragraphs 13 to 17) follows the same line as K.N. Sathyapalan (supra). Conclusion: 32. The present case is similar. The arbitrator has returned a finding that IRCON and CRS were both responsible for the delay. Having come to this conclusion, there is no infirmity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the arbitrator apportioning the delay between the two parties. The judgment of this court in Deconar Services (supra) (paragraph 8) emphasizes that this exercise, in the nature of a factual determination, is well within the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. 33. The arbitrator’s finding, attributing the delay to both the parties can also not be faulted in the present case on the ground of perversity or manifest arbitrariness. The judgments in Sh. Bharat Lal (supra) (paragraph 2) and Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (supra) (paragraphs 6 and 8), lay down that the arbitrator is entitled to draw a conclusion in favour of the contractor from the fact that extensions of time were granted without imposition of liquidated damages. 34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any ground to set aside the impugned award on claim no. 3. Interest 35. The final argument urged by Mr. Kumar was with respect to the rate of interest awarded by the arbitrator. However, the grounds in the petition lay no foundation for such an argument. Following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in NITTY Construction (supra), I am of the view that the rate of interest awarded cannot be modified in the present petition. Conclusion 36. For the reasons aforesaid, IRCON has failed to make out any ground for setting aside of the impugned award. The petition is therefore dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-10-2020 Construction Industry Development Council, New Delhi Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 M/s. Desai Developers & Builders Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Shree Sainath Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-09-2020 Elite International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-09-2020 K. Murugan: Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2547/15 T. Velladurai, Petitioner in W.P (MD). No. 2548/15, Versus The Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat), Panchayat Union Office, Alangulam & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
09-09-2020 Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, through Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Nagpur Versus Laxman Seetaram Neulkar & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
07-09-2020 Suneeta Sharma Versus Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Punjab & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
02-09-2020 G.C. Kishor Kumar Versus Karnataka State Handicrafts Development Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-09-2020 M/s Elgi Equipments Ltd., Rep.by its company Secretary, S. Raveendar, Coimbatore Versus M/s Kurichi New Town Development Authority Rep.by its Member Secretary, Kurichi, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Centre for Environment Protection Research & Development & Others Supreme Court of India
27-08-2020 M/s. Web International Cargo Ltd., Rep. by its proprietor Srinivas P. Bhat Versus M/s. Magnum Logistics Ltd., Rep. by its Director, Jayaram High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd. & Another Versus Unwired Planet International Ltd. & Another United Kingdom Supreme Court
25-08-2020 The Deputy General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Coimbatore & Another Versus M/s. Annamalai Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, P. Velusamy, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-08-2020 Gopal Krishna Mishra Versus State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare Development, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
24-08-2020 The Director of Income-Tax International Taxation, Bangalore & Another Versus The Executive Engineer, M/s. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
20-08-2020 M/s. Life Cell International Private Limited, Represented by its Company Secretary D. Mahesh, Chennai Versus Vinay Katrela High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-08-2020 Samuel Dorman Versus Superior Builders, Mumbai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-08-2020 M/s. Barnala Builders & Property Consultants Through Its Accounts Head, Zirakpur Versus Capt. U.C. Arora National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-08-2020 Karakapally Pusparaju Versus The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-08-2020 Khaja Nayeemuddin Versus State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-08-2020 Maranalloor Milk Producers Co. Operative Society Ltd. Represented by Its Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus The Registrar /Director, Directorate of Dairy Development, Pattom & Others High Court of Kerala
05-08-2020 Sudhindra Das Versus Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd & Others High Court of Gauhati
04-08-2020 Santosh Kumar Garg (Deceased) Versus U.P. Housing & Development Board, U.P. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 S. Ganesan Versus The Commissioner, Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-08-2020 Sadanand Versus The State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary Urban Development Department, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
31-07-2020 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, Punjab & Another Versus Deepshikha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Haryana Urban Development Authority, Haryana & Another Versus Jaswant Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 C.R. Mahesh Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
27-07-2020 M/s. Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Its Director Shaji K. Mathew, Vyttila Versus The Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
24-07-2020 Vishnu Priya & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, SC/ST Development Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
24-07-2020 P. Prabhavathi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
17-07-2020 Paras International Exports Versus Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
17-07-2020 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Delhi International Airport Ltd. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
15-07-2020 Vankudoth Swathi Versus The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-07-2020 The Director General (Road Development) National Highways Authority of India Versus Aam Aadmi Lokmanch & Others Supreme Court of India
13-07-2020 Rakesh Wadhwan, Shareholder (Housing Development & Infrastructure Ltd.) Versus Bank of India, Bandra, & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
09-07-2020 Khem Raj Verma & Others Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
07-07-2020 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bengaluru & Another Versus Byamma & Others High Court of Karnataka
07-07-2020 Dr. Y. Kedareswari Versus The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Social Welfare (SC Development) Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
03-07-2020 M/s. Psa Impex Pvt Ltd Versus Graeater Noida Industrial Development & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-07-2020 State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary to Government, Department of General Education, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus C.R. Vinod Kumar High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Bengal Shirsti Infrastructure Development Ltd. & Others Versus Saurajit Banerjee & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
29-06-2020 Coromandel International Ltd. (Earlier Known As Coromandel Fertillisers Ltd.) Through its Authorized Representative, Vishakhapatnam & Others Versus Kamrubai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 M/s. Kuber Builders a registered partnership Versus Union of India, Through Chief Commissioner of Income Tax High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-06-2020 IRCON International Ltd. Versus M/s. Meumal Athwani High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
24-06-2020 M/s. Atul Aggarwal & Sons Versus M/s. Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2020 M/s. Shiv Narayan Periwal & Sons, Punjab Versus Bharat Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-06-2020 Barak Valley Hills Tribes Development Council, Assam Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
23-06-2020 M/s. Angelique International Limited Versus Public Electricity Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
23-06-2020 Swetha Shri Selvakumar Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 P.S. Srinivas Rao Versus 60th Padubidri Grama Panchayath, Represented by its Panchayath Development Officer & Others High Court of Karnataka
18-06-2020 N. Krishnamoorthy Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-06-2020 M/s. Gurudatta Builders & Others Versus Aaron Enoch Ashtamkar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 M/s.Vaibhav Laxmi Builders & Developers Versus Laxmibai Chinduji Puram National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-06-2020 Aberdeen Asia Pacific Including Japan Equity Fund Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1(1)(1) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-06-2020 Dr. D. Euvalingam & Others Versus The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2020 M/s. J.S. & M.F. Builders Versus A.K. Chauhan & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
12-06-2020 Awadhesh Kumar Versus Multi State Co-operative Land Development Bank, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
11-06-2020 M/s. E.V. Mathai & Sons, Represented by Its Managing Partner, Rubber Dealer, Kothamangalam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
10-06-2020 Hotel Nikhil Sai International Bar & Restaurant Versus Assistant Commissioner ST Audit & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-06-2020 Director of Income-Tax, International Taxation Versus M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
09-06-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Chief Engineer High Court of for the State of Telangana
05-06-2020 Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Versus BDR Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
05-06-2020 State of Orissa Versus M/s. B. Engineers & Builders Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
02-06-2020 C. Sasiyendran Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-06-2020 Nagen Chandra Das & Others Versus The State of Assam, Rep. by the Comm. And Secy., Deptt. of Urban Development Deptt., Dispur & Others High Court of Gauhati
01-06-2020 Sri Vinayaka Caterors & Consultants, Partnership Firm, Represented by its Partners, K. Eshwar Versus The Executive Warden, International Hostels, Anna University, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Padmavani Educational & Charitable Trust, Rep.by its Joint Managing Trustee, Salem Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 K. Shanthi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 M/s SGS Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Bihar Urban Development Agency BUDA, Patna & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
29-05-2020 N. Vijayakumary Versus The Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited, Registered Office Thrissur, Represented By Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
20-05-2020 Muhammed Koya & Others Versus State of Kerala, Rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, CFS, Ernakulam, (Cr.No. 269 of 1998 of Pala Police, Station), Through The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 M/s. Shriram Capital Limited, A Limited Company represented by its Vice-President, N. Mani Versus The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation) & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 The Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation, Water Resources Department, Sinchan Bhavan, Kopri Colony, Thane (West) & Others Versus M/s. F.A. Enterprises & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2020 V. Srinivas Chowdary & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Gaddam Koteswaramma Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Ravipati Nagasarala & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
05-05-2020 V. Divakar Versus The State of Karnataka, Department of Urban Development, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-05-2020 Prabhu & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Housing & Urban Development, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
04-05-2020 Bhansali Productions Pvt.Ltd. Versus Eros International Medial Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-05-2020 M/s. Inter Ads Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. Versus Busworld International Cooperatieve Vennootschap Met Beperkte Anasprakelijkheid High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Romesh Kumar Bajaj Versus Delhi Development Authority High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Delhi Development Authority & Others Versus Pushpa Lata & Others High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Banyan Tree Growth Capital L.L.C. Versus Axiom Cordages Limited (Previously Known as Axion Impex International Ltd.) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-04-2020 Flemingo Travel Retail Limited, Having Registered Office at Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Represented by Its Authorised Signatory Nixon Varghese Versus Kannur International Airport Limited, Mattannur, Represented by Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
28-04-2020 HRT Builders, rep. by its Managing Partner Thondepu Ratna Srinivas Versus State of A.P. rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Velagapudi & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 P. Damodhar Versus The Telangana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited rep by its Joint Managing Director, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-04-2020 South Durban Community Environmental Alliance Versus MEC For Economic Development, Tourism And Environmental Affairs Kwazulu-Natal Provincial Government & Another Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
08-04-2020 Civilian Welfare & Development Trust (Regd.) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
04-04-2020 ABC Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Women & Child Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
21-03-2020 Jaiveer Singh Virk Versus Sir Sobha Singh & Sons Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Prem Devi Versus Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Union of India Versus Bharat Biotech International Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 J. Fransis Xavier Versus State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, All women police station (East), Coimbatore (Cr.No.165/2007) High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 Raj Kumar Versus Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan Near Ina Market New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay