Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2013 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 507 - DELHI HIGH COURTDue to various breaches on the part of the petitioner the work could be completed after a delay of 1435 days - Held that:- While deciding the claim(s) the learned Arbitrator has given reasons for his finding and adjudication. As time was not the essence of the contract, as it was set at large through unilateral extensions, as per law if time is not the essence of the contract, notice under Section 55 of Contract Act, 1872 is not required. This fact is clear from the second para of Section 55 of the Contract Act, 1872. M/s. Hind Construction Contractors by its sole proprietor Bhikamchand Mulchand Jain (Dead) by L.R.’s Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 720. Relevant para 9 reads as under - Having regard to the aforesaid material on record, particularly the clause in the agreement pertaining to imposition of penalty and extension of time it seems to us clear that time (12 months period) was never intended by the parties to be of the essence of the contract. Further from the correspondence on the record particularly, the letter (Ex. 78) by which the contract was rescinded it does appear that the stipulation of 12 months’ period was waived, the contractor having been allowed to do some more work after the expiry of the period, albeit at his risk, by making the recision effective from August 16, 1956. It is evident that the arbitrator has rightly awarded 12% interest as even the Nationalized banks are charging more than 12% on clean loans for commercial activities - Reference to invocation of clause 3-A is irrelevant - The learned Arbitrator has rightly awarded the cost of arbitration in favour of the respondent - Under these circumstances the objection filed by the petitioner are liable to be dismissed.
|