9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MENT : Heard Finally. 2. The Petitioner has invoked under section 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956, based upon the invoice so raised in the Petition for Rs. 33,79,914 and 76 paise. 3. The Petitioner was assigned the work of land development (filling of ground) at Rooree, by work order dated 11th August 2006. The time was the essence of the work. The agreed date was 15th September 2006. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The issue was raised later on and basically of the deduction of liquidated damages of Rs. 8,49,185/which the Respondent Company calculated from 15th September 2006, that was the date of the completion of the work as per the first work order. 6. The Petitioner therefore, filed the present Petition, apart from claiming due and payable amount as per the bills, the deducted amount and 24 per cent i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trary to the agreement as the revised work was awarded in October, though it was based upon the same terms and conditions, the date of completion remained to be 15th September 2006, is also need trial. 8. The justification of awarding the revised contract and the fact that the work was completed in December and the invocation of the liquidated damages by the Respondent Company, is again a matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to take the other remedy, if available. 11. So far as the present Petition is concerned, the scope and the purpose of the provisions and as the disputed questions of facts are raised and as the amount is not crystalized and it is difficult to accept the case of the Petitioner that the amount is due and payable on the date of the demand notice and/or as on the date of the filing of the Petition, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
