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



Nevilal Rohita Construction Pvt. Ltd. v/s State of Bihar


Company & Directors' Information:- BIHAR STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200BR1974SGC001146

Company & Directors' Information:- L V CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP1998PTC023382

Company & Directors' Information:- CONSTRUCTION INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201GJ1979PTC003375

Company & Directors' Information:- N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2006PTC146888

Company & Directors' Information:- J CONSTRUCTION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TZ2012PTC018250

Company & Directors' Information:- BIHAR CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200BR1960PTC000668

Company & Directors' Information:- P V CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100DL1998PTC097116

Company & Directors' Information:- B. CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U00894BR1989PTC003616

Company & Directors' Information:- C P CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1988PTC043759

    CWJC 6749 Of 2005

    Decided On, 31 August 2005

    At, High Court of Bihar

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR

    For the Appearing Parties: Sadanand Jha, K.K. Mandal, Advocates.



Judgment Text

(1.) Heard Dr. Sadanand Jha for the petitioner, and Mr. K. K. Mandal, learned Govt, Pleader No. IV, for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18-5-2005 (Annexure-23), passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Bihar, whereby he has disposed of the petitioner's representation in pursuance of this Court's order on the previous writ petition, and has in substance refused to extend the time for execution of the contract in question.

(2.) The basic facts needed for the disposal of this writ petition are not in controversy. The petitioner entered into a contract with the State Government which was signed on 21-5-2004 for "Repair and blacktopping of W.F.E. cum Road from 15.00 km. to 23.00 km." at an estimated cost of Rs. 150.00 lacs. The same was on behalf of the State Government executed by respondent No. 6 (the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, West Embankment Division, Kunauli, Birpur). The agreement, inter alia, stipulated that the work had to be completed on or before 30-6-2004. The petitioner was unable to complete the work within the time so stipulated. It was on his request and representation extended upto 31-12-2004. The petitioner did not complete the work leading to cancellation of the contract by letter bearing No. 01/Birpur, dt. 1-1-2005 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit) for the detailed reasons discussed therein. Suppressing this vital fact, the petitioner approached the State Government directly for extension of time which was allowed till 31-5-2005, vide order bearing letter No. 6/94 dated 2-3-2005 (Annexure 17), passed by the Joint Secretary of the Department. This was followed by the letter dated 23-3-2005 (Annexure F/ 3 to 2nd Supplementary Counter Affidavit of respondent Nos. 1 to 6), issued under the signature of the Engineer-in-Chief (North), whereby he recalled the said order dated 2-3-2005 (Annexure-17), and directed for fresh tenders. This led to CWJC No. 4724 of 2005 which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 4-5-2005 (Annexure-21), whereby the petitioner was directed to represent his case before the Joint Secretary, Department of Water Resources, for further extention of time. The petitioner submitted the representation which has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in his elaborate submissions has submitted that the Joint Secretary did not properly appreciate the content and the nature of the direction of this Court and has passed an erroneous order. He further submits that the petitioner has been beset with diverse problems which have not been taken into account by the respondent authorities. He, therefore, submits that the period for execution of the contract in question may be suitably extended.

(4.) Learned Govt. Pleader No. IV has opposed this writ petition and has, inter alia, submitted that the power to rescind the contract is with the Executive Engineer. The petitioner is completely incapable of undertaking such a big project and is not in a position to execute the same. The order dated 2-3-2005 from the Joint Secretary granting extension of time was passed in complete ignorance of the order of cancellation and, therefore, the Engineer-in-Chief was right in passing the order dated 23-3- 2005 (Annexure B/III), and calling for fresh tenders.

(5.) I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The aforesaid order dated 1-1-2005 (Annexure-B) presents a comprehensive picture of the entire matter. It gives the detailed facts and circumstances stating with full evidence and the conclusion that the petitioner started the work at an abnormally low speed, being completely unmindful of the position that time was practically the essence of the contract. It had to be executed in a period of five weeks. It states that the petitioner never brought materials on the site nor the equipments, like hot mix plant and other equipments needed to carry out the project mentioned in detail in the order. The royalty was not deposited to obtain the stone materials. In spite of repeated requests, letters and inspections, the petitioner never took up the work seriously as a result of which he was not able to complete the work in the enlarged period of seven months and one week, in a situation where the contract stipulates that it had to be completed within a period of five weeks. The order in its comprehensive analysis of the whole situation concludes that the petitioner is entirely incapable and ill-equipped to take up and complete the work of this magnitude. It has been needlessly wanting extension of time. In view of the detailed discussion in this order and the valid reasons assigned therein, in my view, there is absolutely no scope for further extension of time. The Executive Engineer was perfectly justified in passing the order dated 1-1-2005 (Annexure B).

(6.) It further appears to me from the materials on record that the petitioner had admittedly received copy of the order dated 1-1-2005 on 8-1-2005, notwithstanding which he approached the Joint Secretary of the Department for extension of time overlooking two aspects of the matter. The Executive Engineer is the authority in terms of the agreement to extend the time, also to rescind the same and, secondly, he did not disclose in his representation that the contract had already been rescinded. Therefore, unless the order dated 1-1-2005 is reconsidered and the contract is revived, there was no scope for the Joint Secretary to pass the order dated 2-3-2005 which seems to have been done in ignorance of the order dated 1-1-2005. Law is well settled that no person can retain a benefit obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of facts or the like. The following observations of Lord Denning in the judgment in the case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, reported in (1956) 1 All ER 341, of the Court of Appeal in England, is illuminating, and has been quoted with approval by Indian Courts repeatedly :-

"I cannot accede to this argument for a moment. No Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The Court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever."

In that view of the matter, the Engineer- in-Chief was perfectly right in passing the order dated 23-3-2005, in substance setting at naught the order dated 2-3-2005, and calling for fresh tenders.

(7.) I must deal with the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the Joint Secretary has not appreciated and carried out the terms and conditions of the order of this Court. The contention completely overlooks the nature and the extent of liberty given to the petitioner, namely, he had to explain the detailed facts and circumstances justifying further extension of time. By his representation to the Joint Secretary, he did the mechanical act of submitting a copy of the order of this Court and did not in the least state the circumstances Justifying extension of time. After a perusal of the aforesaid order dated 1-1-2005 (Annexure-B), I would indeed think it very difficult for the petitioner to make out a case for extension of time. In view of the extra-ordinary onus on him to explain that a time- bound contract like the present one, meant to be completed in five weeks time, was not completed in the enlarged period of seven months and one week. It needs overwhelming circumstances to justify extension. In that view of the matter, the Joint Secretary rightly states in his order that no material at all had been placed before him for application of the mind. The relevant portion of the impugned order is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :-

(8.) On a consideration of the materials on record and the foregoing discussion, the irresistible conclusion is that the petitioner is absolutely incapable of taking up the work of the present magn

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

itude. He is wholly unequipped and equally lacks the requisite seriousness to execute a contract of this magnitude, particularly where time was practically the essence of the contract, as is obvious from the limited time of five weeks agreed upon between the parties for completion of the work. The fact that it was a contract for repair of embankment-cum-road, it was obviously an anti-flood project, and had to be completed within the stipulated period. It is in this background that I see that due to incompetence of the petitioner, the project which had to be concluded within a period of five weeks, could not be completed even during the enlarged period of seven months and one week. The respondent authorities had, therefore, no option but to pass the order dated 1-1-2005, and the consequential order calling upon fresh tenders. The impugned order cannot be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

18-06-2020 M/s. Group 5 Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
02-06-2020 The Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Another Versus Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
22-05-2020 Jai Pal & Others Versus Delhi Building & Other Construction Workers Welfare Board High Court of Delhi
19-05-2020 Kukreja Construction Co. & Another Versus Surendra Narvekar & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
11-05-2020 Posco Engineering & Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sinew Developers Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
08-05-2020 Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited Versus The Board of Trustees For The Port of Kolkata & Another Supreme Court of India
29-04-2020 Quippo Construction Equipment Limited Versus Janardan Nirman Pvt. Limited Supreme Court of India
21-04-2020 Mahadeo Construction Co. at Chhatarpur, Palamau Through its partner Anil Kumar Singh Versus The Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
20-03-2020 M/s. Shyamsingh Devisingh Thakur & Construction Company & Another Versus Municipal Council, Mohpa through its Chief Officer & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
18-03-2020 M/s. COPCO Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director K. George Versus Southern Railway, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-03-2020 M/s. Telco Construction Equipment Company Ltd. & Another Versus Kongara Suryanarayana & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 Sankar Prasad Bose & Another Versus M/s. Shitala Construction Rep. by Ajit Panja & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
12-03-2020 M/S. Mayur Construction Company, Maharshtra & Others Versus Hemlata Bakane & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-03-2020 BSP Infrastructure & Construction Ltd. (BICL) & Others Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India & Another SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
04-03-2020 Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. Versus NHPC Ltd. & Another Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 Shri Chand Construction & Apartments Private Limited & Another Versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd. High Court of Delhi
03-03-2020 Bhanot House Flat Owners/Occupants Association Versus Bhanot Construction & Housing Limited Through Its Directors Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
28-02-2020 Cauvery Construction, West Bengal & Another Versus Subrata Samanta & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-02-2020 M/s. Jain Housing and Construction Ltd Versus Pushpa Roche & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Dr. Utpal KantiMazumdar Versus Millennium India Construction, Rep. by its Partners & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
21-02-2020 Mahindra Consulting Engineers Ltd., Represented by its General Manager, S. Balaji V/S Prabhash Kumar, M/s. Prasambi Design & Construction Pvt Ltd., Patna & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 Suvayan Chakraborty, Prop., King Construction Versus Subhendu Bikash Das West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
17-02-2020 Nileshbhai Arvindbhai Gandhi, Director, Cube Construction Engineering Limited Versus State of Gujarat & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
14-02-2020 M/s. Z. Engineers Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Another V/S Bipin Bihari Behera And Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 The Superintending Engineer, General Construction, TANTRANSCO Ltd., Tatabad, Coimbatore & Another Versus Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Director of Industries and Commerce, Represented by its Chairman, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 Chandigarh Construction Company Private Limited Versus State of Punjab & Another Supreme Court of India
13-02-2020 M/s. High End Quality Construction (P) Ltd., PWD & CPWD Contractors rep by its Managing Director T. Sudha Versus The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 In The Matter of: National Building Construction Corporation Ltd [Presently NBCC (India) Limited] V/S M/s. J R Construction High Court of Delhi
12-02-2020 Ravi Rathi & Another Versus M/s Aditya Construction Company (India) Pvt., Ltd., Represented by its Director, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
12-02-2020 M/s. Om Tara Maa Construction & Others Versus Alaka Roy West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
12-02-2020 M/s. Mahakaleswar Construction & Another Versus Palash Das & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
11-02-2020 M. Velusamy Versus The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd., TANGEDCO), General Construction Circle, Tatabad, Coimbatore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 V. Vennila Versus The Executive Engineering Transmission Line Construction/ Tamilnadu Transmission Corporation Ltd. (TANTRANSCO), Thanjavur District & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 M/s. Edelweiss Asset Construction Company Limited Versus R. Perumalswamy & Others Supreme Court of India
06-02-2020 Corporation Bank V/S Aanav Construction Co. and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
05-02-2020 Dipak Chandra Dhar, Senior Trackman, Under Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F. Railway, Silchar Versus Union of India, Represented by the General Manager, N.F. Railway, Maligaon & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
04-02-2020 M/s. Reliance Construction Co., Mumbai & Others Versus Priti O. Ganvir & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-02-2020 Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram (Appearing on Behalf of Southern Railway) Versus P. Rajendran Asari & Another High Court of Kerala
30-01-2020 Shantal Nayak Versus M/s. Wibro Construction Company Through its Proprietor, M.K. Abdulla In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-01-2020 Mondal Construction Company Ltd., Uttarayan, West Bengal & Others Versus Recovery Officer Securities and Exchange Board of India, Kolkata & Others SEBI Securities amp Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
27-01-2020 Subir Sen & Another Versus The Ganapati Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-01-2020 Krishna Pada Poddar Versus ABS Land Development and Construction Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Tapan Ghosh West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
23-01-2020 M/s. URC Construction (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Authorised Signatory V. Ganesan, Manager Versus M/s. Airport Authority of India, Rep. by its Senior Manager Engg (C) Project Division - IV, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 The Indian Officer's Association, Chennai Versus M/s. Swaruba Engineering Construction Company Private Limited, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-01-2020 Star Build Max Pvt Limited Balua Tal, Motihari, District- East Champaran, Through its Proprietor Parvez Ahmad Khan Versus State of Bihar Through, Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
20-01-2020 State of AP Versus Devi Engineering & Construction High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-01-2020 Meerut Development Authority Meerut Versus M/s Civil Engineering Construction Corporation & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-01-2020 Anirban Sinha Versus M/s. Millenium India Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-01-2020 C. Radhakrishnan V/S Richa Construction & Associates & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-01-2020 M/s. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Versus Kamladityya Construction Pvt Ltd. High Court of Jharkhand
09-01-2020 M/s. Wibro Construction Co., Represented by its Proprietor, K. Abdulla Versus E.K. Joshy, Partner, Amal Construction In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
09-01-2020 M/s. Apex Construction & Another Versus Naihati Janhabi Welfare Society & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
08-01-2020 M/s. Sathee Engineering Construction Company, Rep. by its Proprietor, Gopu Kumar, Kollam Versus Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Versus Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-12-2019 M/s. Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd., Represented by its Authorized Representative, New Delhi Versus V.O.Chidambaram Port Trust High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-12-2019 Rockline Construction Company a Sole Proprietor firm of Saranga Anil Agarwal Versus Doha Bank, QSC & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-12-2019 Vyankateshwara Infrastructure & Vyankateshwara Construction & Another Versus Sunanda Parchaki & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-12-2019 Lokhandwala Construction Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Bala K. Ayer National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-12-2019 Skyline Construction Housing Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Ashley John Machado & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-12-2019 M/s. AGC-SCCPL JV A Joint Venture of M/s. A.G. Construction & Sharda Construction & Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Through its Authorized Signatory Mohammad Arif Khan Versus State of Maharashtra, through : the Principal Secretary, Public works Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
10-12-2019 The Chief Engineer (Construction), Gauge Conversion, Southern Railway, Chennai & Another Versus Sri Swarna & Co., Represented by its Managing Partner, B. Venugopal Reddy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-12-2019 Srilakshmi Vallurupalli Versus M/s. Aditya Construction Company (India) Pvt., Ltd., Represented by its Director, Thota Satyanarayana & Others Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
06-12-2019 Ashok Kumar Khatri & Another Versus ABS Land Development & Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
06-12-2019 M/s. Braganza Construction Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
04-12-2019 M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, V.S. Prasad Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Project Director, Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-12-2019 Omaxe Construction Ltd. & Another Versus Dr. Rajesh Jale National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
03-12-2019 Swapan Kumar Ghosh Versus M/s. New Maatara Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
03-12-2019 Vrinda Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-12-2019 M/s. Chandragiri Construction Company, Partnership Firm, Rep. by its Managing Partner - K.M. Moideen Kunhi Versus Government of Puducherry, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Puducherry & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-11-2019 Laxmi Rani Chakraborty & Others Versus Tanuja Chakraborty. Partner, M/s. Ganapati Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
26-11-2019 Sushil Chandra Bag Versus M/s. Capable Construction Rep. by its prop., Goutam Halder West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
25-11-2019 National Highways Authority of India Versus Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
20-11-2019 Rehana Khan Versus Trishakti Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
15-11-2019 K. Raja Assistant Engineer (Highways) Construction & Maintenance Wing Perundurai Section Perundurai & Others Versus The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Highways and Minor Ports Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2019 Union of India Versus Pradeep Vinod Construction Company Supreme Court of India
11-11-2019 Border Roads Organization (Bro) Versus M/s. Abhyudaya Housing & Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Sikkim
05-11-2019 Sanjay Kumar Mitra & Another Versus M/s. Milennium India Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
01-11-2019 Kamal Navin Chandra Modi & Another Versus R.T. Construction Prop. Rabi Tiwari & Another West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
31-10-2019 Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. Versus NBCC (India) Limited Formerly Known as National Buildings Construction Corporation Ltd. High Court of Delhi
25-10-2019 Tamilaga Kattida Thozhilalargal Sangam, Rep. by its Salem Zonel Secretary, P. Ganesan Versus The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Construction Workers, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-10-2019 Bhanwar Singh Rathore Versus Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Ltd. High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
23-10-2019 Yogesh Nandlal Heda Versus M/s. Subal Construction & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-10-2019 A.S. Vijaya, Draughtsman, Gr.I, Civil Construction Wing (E), All India Radio, Bangalore Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting ‘A' Wing, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
21-10-2019 Manoj Prasad Verma Versus Neesu Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
17-10-2019 M/s. Teems Engineering Construction, Rep. by its Partner, G.R. Ravi, Chennai Versus The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, General Construction Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-10-2019 The Kolhapur Municipal Corporation Versus Fairdeal Construction, Through Proprietor, K.N. Jyothindran High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-10-2019 Union of India Versus M/S. Associated Construction Co. High Court of Delhi
14-10-2019 The Superintending Engineer, General Construction Circle Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Trichy Versus The Assistant Inspector of Labour, Assistant Labour Commissioner (Enforcement), Villupuram & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2019 Tecpro Systems Limited, Through its authorized representative Mr.D.Venkatasubramaniam Versus Telangana State Power Generation Company Limited, Represented by its Chief Engineer (Generation) Thermal Projects Construction-II High Court of for the State of Telangana
21-09-2019 M/s Siddhivinayak Construction Company, through its Proprietor Arun Sadhu Gondal Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-09-2019 Vicraant Abhishek Kela Versus Selene Construction Limited Through its Managing Director, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-09-2019 Indira Shaw Versus M/s. Milennium India Construction & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-09-2019 Ram Nayan Nishad Versus M/s. Ansal Housing And Construction Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-09-2019 Sharad Madhav Kulkarni & Others Versus Midaas Construction Company P. Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
11-09-2019 Mangalam Chaudhary Company Versus Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-09-2019 Mohinder Rijhwani & Others Versus Hiranandani Construction Pvt Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-09-2019 Manjeera Engineering & Construction Company Private Limited Versus Union of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-09-2019 IL&FS Engineering & Construction Company Ltd., Formerly Maytas Infra Ltd., Represented by Prabhakar Reddy Versus Government of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
02-09-2019 Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Chandigarh Versus M/s Kalsi Construction Company Supreme Court of India
30-08-2019 Bela Mittal Versus M/s. Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC