LawforAll

▼
Thursday, August 24, 2017

contract works= correcting the typographical error in the CSR rates was not an act of modification of those rates as such. =That act cannot be construed as retrospective change introduced in the CSR by the respondents. The High Court has justly rejected this plea by giving an illustration that if the CSR rates were to be misprinted as Re.1 or Rs. 2 per cubic metre for the financial year 1981-82, the appellant would not have agreed to be bound by such rate. ; when the terms of contract are clear, no other facts are permitted to sway away the terms of contract =Trial Court was swayed away by the fact that the appellant was required to transport water from some distance via Kaccha Road for which the appellant was entitled to such claim. The High Court in paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment, however, considered the said claim of the appellant with reference to the contract document. In that, Clause “d” of tender Item No.8, pertaining to watering and mechanized compaction of earth work, clearly stated that the rates for earthwork raising are inclusive of watering and compaction at optimum moisture content. Further, in Clause “d” of Item No.8, it has been made amply clear that no extra payment for these items would be given.

›
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10269 OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.158...
Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Triple Talaq - A Land Mark Judgment of Full Bench

›
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Original Civil Jurisdiction Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016 Shayara Bano … Petitioner versu...