A construction contractor challenged the rejection of additional interest and profit claims. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the arbitrator's contractual interpretation was a possible view and that challenges to factual assessment did not justify interference under Section 34. No costs were awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
1
JPP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 455 OF 2007
Madhu Construction Company, A partnership firm registered under The Indian Partnership Act, 1935, and having its office at
312, Kalbadevi Road, 3rd floor, Mumbai – 400 002. … Petitioner.
V/s.
A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at 15 D, MIDC Central Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 093 and office at 102, Gajalaxmi, Old Nagardas Road,
Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 069.
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
2
A firm registered under the
Indian Partnership Act, 1932
Having its office at Neelashri,
3rd floor, Aarey Marg, Goregaon (East),
Mumbai – 400 063 and at
102, Gajalaxmi, Old Nagardas Road,
Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 069.
... Respondents.
Mr. Vinit D. Jawle for the Petitioner.
Mr. Shailesh Shah, Senior Advocate, Prakash Ganwani, Mr. Jonathan Soloman, Ms. Soniya Putta i/b. Soloman & Co. for Respondent 2.
Coram : N.M. Jamdar, J. Reserved on : 19 July, 2017. Pronounced on : 29 August 2017.
:- Judgment
The Petitioner, by this Arbitration Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has challenged the award of the Arbitrator dated 8 August 2007
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
3
rendered in the arbitration proceedings between the parties. The learned Arbitrator granted some of the claims of the Petitioner - Claimant and rejected the remaining. Against the refusal to grant some of the claims, the Petitioner has approached this Court.
4 ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
constructed. Bagwe Housing and Shree Construction Company encountered difficulties while carrying out the construction. They then decided to enter into an agreement with Madhu Construction Company – the Petitioner. An agreement was executed on 5 November 1999, between Shree Construction Company as the First part, Bagwe Housing Pvt. Ltd. as the Second part and Madhu Construction Company - 'the New Contractor' as the Third part. This agreement is the genesis of the present dispute.
5 ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
i.e. the Developer, the Principal Contractor and the New Contractor. Details in respect of the construction were provided for.
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
6
agreement on 22 March 2002. According to the Petitioner, further finance was also infused at the instance of the Petitioner. The Petitioner raised certain claims for the dues ,which were not paid by the Respondents.
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
7
8 August 2007. The learned Arbitrator in respect of claim Nos.1,2 and 3 awarded an amount of Rs.33,31,892/- in favour of the Petitioner along with interest at the rate of 12% from 15 July 2004. Aggrieved by the Award of the Arbitrator refusing to grant the total amount claimed the Petitioner – claimant has filed the present Arbitration Petition.
(a) The Petitioner has challenged the finding of the learned Arbitrator on points for determination Nos. 1,5,6,7 and 8 as framed by the learned Arbitrator.
(b) The learned Arbitrator has passed an award contrary to the contract between the parties and therefore, the award passed is beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator.
( c ) The main point of dispute was in respect of interest. As per Clause 8(iii) of the agreement dated 5 November 1999 the
8 ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
Petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the amounts certified by the Architects. In view of Clause 8(iv), if the Petitioner was to complete the construction on or before 30 June 2001, without claiming any escalation then over and above construction costs and interest thereon, the Petitioner was entitled to an amount of Rs.100/- per square feet of saleable built up area. In view of Clause 8(v), since the completion of the work was delayed beyond the stipulated or extended date because of the actions of the Respondents, the Petitioner would be entitled to the claim. The learned Arbitrator has given go by to the scheme provided in the aforesaid clauses.
(d) The entitlement of the Petitioner for interest at the rate of 24% per annum has nothing to do with the delay in completion of the construction work. The learned Arbitrator misread the clauses of the agreement and did not appreciate that if there was a delay in execution of the work, at the most the Petitioner may not get price escalation, but it's right to get interest at the rate of 24% of the certified bills remains.
(e) The learned Arbitrator has failed to award even the sums admitted by the Respondents in their correspondence i.e. the interest on the certified construction bills up to 31 March 2002 amounting to Rs.30,57,548/-. This amount was also admitted by the Respondents in the proceedings before the previous Arbitrator.
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
9
The Respondents had accepted that they would pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum on certified construction bills.
(f) Even assuming the Petitioner was not entitled to interest at the rate of 24% beyond 31 March 2002, the Petitioner was entitled to the sum of Rs.30,57,548/- payable to the Petitioner upto 31 March 2002, which was admitted by the Respondents themselves.
(g) The learned Arbitrator erroneously rejected the claim for interest on construction bills based on figure of Rs.97,87,338/which, according to the learned Arbitrator, was the work done by the Petitioner for which no bills were raised by them. This finding is contrary to the evidence on record. The Petitioner never raised any claim for any work done which was not paid. The Petitioner never claimed an amount of Rs.97,87,338/-. The finding of the Arbitrator is based on a factual position which does not exist.
(h) The learned Arbitrator rejected the case of the Respondents for refund of interest and while rejecting the case of the Respondents for refund of interest, the learned Arbitrator has categorically come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner is not liable to any interest after the stipulated date, since the Arbitrator could not have rejected the claim of the Respondents otherwise.
(i) The learned Arbitrator has failed to consider the admitted figure of Rs.4,57,53,186/- which were admitted certified bills. The
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
10
learned Arbitrator on equitable consideration, awarded 12% interest to the Petitioner even though the agreed rate of interest was 24%. In view of the stipulations in the contract regarding the rate of interest, the learned Arbitrator had no discretion in deciding the rate of interest.
(j) The learned Arbitrator has referred to the award of the previous Arbitrator however, while referring the figures, the learned Arbitrator has erroneously incorporated the figures which never existed in the earlier award.
(k) While considering the prayers for interest, the learned Arbitrator has erroneously deducted the payments made to the material supply agencies as the payments were made to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was entitled to the interest thereon.
(l) As per clause (9) of the Building Construction Contract dated 29 May 2001, if the contract is sub-let to other agencies and the responsibility of the Petitioner would be reduced to that extent and the only consequences there would be that instead of 10% profit the profit would be 5%, however, the Petitioner would be entitled to 5% overheads.
(m) Before the learned Arbitrator, as regard the amount paid to the agencies engaged in the work, there was a difference of Rs.19,50,000/-, While deciding this issue, the learned Arbitrator did not consider the evidence produced by the Petitioner such as
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
11
signed vouchers. The learned Arbitrator did not consider that the labour contract was given by the Petitioner to one Mr. Lalji Solanki, who in the cross-examination had admitted that the amount stated to have been paid by the Respondents to him was a loan from the Respondents yet this vital admission has been over-looked by the learned Arbitrator.
(n) The delay was not due to the fault of the Petitioner but it was since the Respondents did not make any payment to the Petitioner and the Petitioner had to obtain funds from the market for the Respondents. The Respondents took over the control and supervision of the work from the Petitioner from July/August 2001, which is clear from the evidence produced by the Respondents themselves. The learned Arbitrator has not come to any categorical conclusion that the delay was due to the fault of the Petitioner. The findings of the learned Arbitrator on this issue is self-contradictory and contrary to the evidence on record.
(o) As laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Associated Engineering Co. v/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.1 , the Arbitrator cannot act contrary to the provisions of the contract. In the case of Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited v/s. Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Anr.2 and State of Haryana v/s. S.L.
1 1991(4) SCC 93
2 1999 (9) SCC 283
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
12
Arora & Co.3 it was held by the Apex Court that the Arbitrator has to adjudicate within the terms of the contract and cannot grant rates on equitable grounds. The Award being without jurisdiction needs to be quashed and set aside.
(a) The scope of Section 34 of the Act is extremely limited and even assuming some errors are committed by the Arbitrator it does not lead to setting aside of the Award.
(b) The arguments advanced by the Petitioner in this Petition are different than the ones which are advanced before the learned Arbitrator.
(c ) The Petitioner must show that he had complied with his obligation under the contract. The Petitioner did not complete the construction work even by 30 August 2002, assuming the time was so extended. The Petitioner failed to provide finance after March 2002 because of which the Respondents had to enter into an agreement with the outsiders giving security of some flats. The Arbitrator has recorded a finding of fact that the construction work was not completed by 31 March 2002.
3 2010 (3) SCC 690
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
13
(d) The case of the Petitioner, as advanced in this Court that the Petitioner could not complete the work because the Respondents started to appoint other agencies, is a completely new case, not taken in the statement of claim nor in the correspondence.
(e) There is no evidence that the Respondents appointed agencies before March 2002, on the other hand, the Petitioner appointed outside agencies. The correspondence would show that the Petitioner failed to appoint even supervisors on the site. The Petitioner failed to appoint the civil engineer and that work had to be done by the Respondents.
(f) Even assuming the time was extended to 31 August 2002 as contended by the Petitioner, nothing was done by the Petitioner and all the steps had to be taken by the Respondents. The Respondents had to incur an amount to the extent of Rs.97,00,000/- in spite of this position the Respondents paid the amount due as per contract to the Petitioner.
(g) The contentions of the Petitioner that an amount of Rs.30,57,548/- as admitted by the Respondents, is entirely incorrect. This amount was agreed to be paid by the Respondents provided the Petitioner would complete the construction as per the contract and the letters dated 15 May 2002 and 12 May 2002 issued were prior to August 2002 were based on this understanding. Even in the award of the earlier Arbitrator, there is no admission on the part of
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
14
the Respondents. In fact, as against the claim of interest, it is stated that the claim is 'adjudicated' and not 'agreed'.
(h) The learned Arbitrator has not taken any wrong figures as sought to be alleged. In paragraph 14(b) of the Award, the learned Arbitrator has clarified that reference is made to paragraphs 7(a) and 7(d) and if these paragraphs are taken together, a correct amount is reflected.
(i ) The claim of the Petitioner for 10% profit is entirely baseless and a needless confusion is sought to be created. The relevant clause stipulates 10% profit and 5% overheads. It is stipulated that in case the Respondents appoints outside agencies, profit is reduced to 5%. The Petitioner have sought to mix up the aspect of overheads with profit.
(j) The finding of the learned Arbitrator that the amount was paid to the outside agencies, for which witness was examined, is a factual finding rendered after considering the evidence on record, and cannot be interfered with.
(k) There was no further cross examination of the witness Mr. Lalji Solanki after he had stated that the amount was received as loan and on this ground the finding of the Arbitrator cannot be faulted.
(l) The finding of the Arbitrator regarding entitlement of the Petitioner, under Clause 8(iv) of the agreement, is a purely a factual
15 ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
finding based on interpretation of the clauses of the agreement and it is for the Arbitrator to interpret clauses of the agreement contract.
(m) There is no merit in the challenge raised by the Petitioner to the impugned award.
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
16
the agreement. The Court may set aside an award if the arbitral award is in conflict with public policy of India. Explanation to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) clarifies that the award is in conflict of public policy of India if the making of award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption; it was in conflict with basic notions of morality or justice and is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law. Thus the bare perusal of Section 34 reveals the extremely narrow jurisdiction conferred on the Court.
4 (2015) 3 SCC 49
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
17
Furthermore, it is within the domain of the Arbitrator to construe the terms of the contract and unless the construction is so perverse that no reasonable person would construe to a contract in the said fashion, it is not to be interfered with.
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
18
Rs.3,75,54,760/-. Credit claimed by the Petitioner for an amount of Rs.7,48,646/- by way of interest, brokerage, etc. Amount paid by the Respondents account of the Petitioner to agencies at the rate of Rs.1,57,57,711/- or Rs.1,38,07,711/-. Whether the Petitioner was required to give credit to the Respondents for an amount of Rs.3,46,525/-. Claim of the Petitioner for an amount under Clause 8(iv) of the agreement dated 5 November 1999 and whether any amount in excess of Rs.21,41,276/- is payable by the Respondents to the Petitioner. The learned Arbitrator having gone through the agreements interpreted the clauses and held that the Petitioner are entitled to some of the claims and negatived the remaining claims. The Petitioner has restricted their claim and the arguments on the point for determination Nos.(i),(v),(vi),(vii) and (viii). Point for determination No.(ix) relates to cost. These points for determination, the findings of the Arbitrator on which the Petitioner is aggrieved by, are as under :-
“(i) At what rate the Claimants are entitled to payment of profit on the amount of Rs.2,43,28,618/- being the amount of works executed by various Agencies, whether at 5% as claimed by the Respondents or at 10% as claimed by the Claimants.
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
19
(iv)
(v) What is the amount paid by the Respondents on account of the Claimants to Agencies engaged in the works, whether Rs. 1,57,57,711/- as claimed by the Respondents or Rs.1,38,07,711/- as claimed by the Claimants.
(vi) Whether the Claimants are required to give credit to the Respondents for the amount of Rs.3,46,525/claimed to have been paid by the Respondents on account of Departmental Labour.
(vii) Whether the Claimants are entitled to receive any amount from the Respondents under Clause 8(iv) of Agreement dated 5 November 1999 by way of profit.
(viii) Whether any amount in excess of Rs.21,41,276/is payable by the Respondents to the Claims on account of interest and if yes, the amount thereof.”
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
20
contended by Mr. Shah, the sum and substance of the Petitioner's claim is the enforcement of contractual terms. It will thus have to be seen whether the Petitioner was rightly held to be not entitled to the claims made.
“8. IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO THAT the consideration payable by the Developers and/or Principal Contractors to the New Contractors shall be as follows :-
(i) the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) and/or other lesser amount that may be paid by the New Contractor to the MCGM for the purpose of obtaining of Commencement Certificate as aforesaid, shall be reimbursed with simple interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum, first as more particularly stated in Clause 9A(c)(i) herein;
(ii) the New Contractors shall raise Bill/s for construction costs at the rates as provided in Clause 7 hereof per square foot of areas of Plinth and Balconies, after completion of each stage of construction as per the schedule of progress of work, from time to time as per the progress of the
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
21
works and as per Schedule of Payment as provided in Annexure 'C' hereto Each of the said Bills of the New Contractors shall be certified by the Architect Shri Jayant Vaidya of M/s. D.R. Vaidya & Co. within 7 days from the date of submission of such Bill by the New Contractors to the said Architect for certification;
(iii) the New Contractors shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 24% per annum on such amounts as may be certified for payment by the Architects, M/s. D.R. Vaidya & Co. to the New Contractors in respect of each of the Bills for construction costs submitted by the New Contractors, from the date of each such Certificate to the date of receipt of payment. The New Contractors shall submit to the Developers and Principal Contractors Debit Notes for the amount of interest that may become due to the New Contractors for every quarter at the agreed rate of 24% per annum on the amounts certified for payment by the Architects;
(iv) subject to the provisions of sub-clause (v) hereof, in consideration of the New Contractors completing the works as provided herein and in the Building Contract, on or before 30th June, 2001 or within such extended period as may be approved by the Architect under the Building Contract to be executed between the parties hereto as provided in Clause 7 hereof, without claiming any escalation, even if sales of premises on the said land and realization of price thereof and payments of construction costs, interest and
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
22
other amounts to the New Contractors may be delayed, besides the construction costs and interest thereon as aforesaid, the Developers and/or Principal Contractors shall pay to the New Contractors an amount of Rs.100/- per square foot of saleable built up area in respect of the building constructed/to be constructed on the said land by the New Contractors hereunder;
(v) In case completion of the works as provided herein and in the Building Contract is delayed beyond 30th June, 2011 or such extended period as may be approved by the Architect under the Building Contract to be executed between the parties hereto as provided in Clause 7 hereof, by reason of any act or default on the part of the Developers or the Principal Contractors or the Architects, the New Contractors shall be entitled to receive such amount on account of escalation in prices of material and labour after 30th June 2001 in respect of works extended by the New Contractors after 30th June 2001 as may be certified by the Architect.”
Sub-clause 8 (iii) lays down the entitlement of the Petitioner for interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the amount certified by the Architects from the date of each certificate till receipt of payment. Sub-clause (iv) lays down that, for consideration of the Petitioner completing the works on or before 30 June 2001 without claiming any escalation, the Petitioner will be entitled to Rs.100/- per square feet. Sub-clause (v) lays down that in case the completion of the works is delayed beyond 30 June 2001 or such extended period as
23 ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
may be approved by the Architects by reason of any default on the part of the principal contractor or developer, the Petitioner shall be entitled to an amount of escalation in prices. The learned Arbitrator has interpreted the clauses to hold that the entitlement of the Petitioner is not absolute and is subject to the Petitioner completing the works within the stipulated period.
24 ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
Arbitrator chosen by the parties. The interpretation of the agreement by the Arbitrator in the present case is in consonance with principles of equity that, one who seeks benefit of a contract must demonstrate that he has adhered to his part of the promise.
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
25
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
26
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
27
the figures given on the premise that if there was no breach the Petitioner would be entitled to interest as stated. Furthermore, in the earlier award the tables which were reproduced indicating the figures, there were two remarks. One “agreed” and the second “adjudicated”. As regard the claim of interest, the remark was not “agreed” but “adjudicated”. In any case, the earlier award wherein the figure of Rs.33,31,892/- has been referred to will have to be read in the light of the endorsement of the Advocate for the Respondent No.2 that they were on the premise that the Petitioner had not committed any breach. Heavy reliance was placed by Mr. Jawle on two letters which were issued by the Respondent No.2 on 15 May 2002 and 12 June 2002 to contend that the amount of Rs.30,57,548/- was an admitted amount. These letters are part of the record. The letter dated 15 May 2002 does refer to interest on construction bill upto 31 March 2002 as Rs.30,57,548/-. Similar is the position as regard the letter dated 12 May 2002. However, both these letters were issued prior to 31 June 2002 and the Petitioner was to complete the contract by 31 June 2002. At that point of time, the Respondents had taken into consideration the obligation of the Petitioner under the contract and had calculated the amount accordingly. Therefore, the Respondents had calculated the amount on the assumption that the parties will abide by the terms and conditions.
28 ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
29
Rs.62,640/- an amount spent on pest control and Rs.12,16,431/- as 5% profit. Though the learned Arbitrator has mentioned paragraph 8, pointed out by Mr. Shah, in fact refers to paragraphs 7(a) and 7(d). The amount of Rs.2,55,45,049/- is a correct amount if it is tallied with paragraphs 7(a) and (d).
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
30
In case the Respondents proceeded to appoint outside agencies, profit would be reduced to 5%. Mr. Shah submitted that it is clear from the record that substantial part of the work was given to the other agencies. The issue framed by the learned Arbitrator clearly indicates that the claim of the Petitioner was towards profits and not towards overheads. After the claim of the Petitioner for 10% profit was negatived argument is sought to be advanced that the Petitioner is entitled to 5% overheads, which is completely distinct concept. The interpretation of clause 9 regarding the reduction in the profit from 10% to 5% is within the domain of the learned Arbitration. There is no perversity in the same as the view taken is a possible view.
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
31
Merely by one line in the cross-examination, which was not taken any further, that it was a loan amount, the entire deposition of the witness and the case of the Respondents could not have been negated. Assessment of evidence, is the prerogative of the arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator has found that, a single statement in the cross-examination, without any further elaboration, is not sufficient to dislodge the case of the Respondents. The learned Arbitrator was well within its jurisdiction to assess the evidence. Again by advancing such arguments, the distinction between a first appeal and an arbitration petition is sought to be blurred.
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
32
completed before 31 March 2002. The learned Arbitrator held that in view of this fact the Petitioner cannot claim any amount under Clause 8. The learned Arbitrator held that this clause is only an incentive and has nothing to do with negligence, contributory or otherwise. The learned Arbitrator held that if the claimants were unable to complete the construction due to any act of default on the part of the Respondents, there was claim in escalation under Subclause 8(v), which was not claimed. The learned Arbitrator therefore interpreted Sub-clause 8(iv), to hold that it was independent of any negligence. The learned Arbitrator has held that it is only an incentive and therefore, question of fault of any party did not arise. As stated earlier, it is within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to interpret the agreement. This interpretation adopted by the learned Arbitrator cannot be stated to be perverse. In view of the fact that the learned Arbitrator construed this claim as only an incentive independent of other aspects, further enquiry was found unnecessary.
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
33
examination, the entire evidence in favour of the Petitioner was discarded. Mr. Jawle submitted that the evidence produced by the Petitioner regarding an amount of Rs.19.50 lakhs was completely discarded by the learned Arbitrator. Again this aspect is in the realm of assessment of evidence. The Respondents examined the witnesses who had deposed that they were paid an amount of Rs.1,57,57,711/-. In the cross-examination the Petitioner did not confront the witness with a case that the amount was not paid by the Respondent No.1 but by the Petitioner. The learned Arbitrator therefore concluded that the Respondents had proved their case as there was no effective cross-examination. The learned Arbitrator was well within its jurisdiction to rule on the sufficiency of evidence and to come to a conclusion that the evidence produced by one party was more cogent than the other. The finding of the learned Arbitrator on this issue therefore cannot be interfered with.
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
34
the parties, which will prevail. He relied upon the decisions in the cases of Associate Engineering Co. v/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.5 , Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited v/s. Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Anr.6 and State of Haryana v/s. S.L. Arora & Co.7
5 (1991) 4 SCC 93
6 (1999) 9 SCC 283
7 (2010) 3 SCC 690
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
35
ARBP 455.07-judt. fnl.doc
36
view taken by the Learned Arbitrator is a possible view and there is nothing grave that is manifest from the record.
(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Did the arbitrator's interpretation linking contractual interest and additional benefits to timely performance warrant interference under Section 34?
Could alleged errors in assessing payments and witness evidence justify setting aside the award?
Did the award of 12% interest instead of the claimed contractual rate of 24% warrant setting aside the award?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Associate Engineering Co. v/s. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.Referred¶188
(1991) 4 SCC 93 · Who else cites this
Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited v/s. Eastern Engineering Enterprises & Anr.Referred¶188
(1999) 9 SCC 283 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v/s. S.L. Arora & Co.Referred¶188
(2010) 3 SCC 690 · Who else cites this
Associated Builders v/s. Delhi Development AuthorityRelied on¶109
(2015) 3 SCC 49 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Madhu Construction Company
Bagwe Housing Pvt. Ltd.
Shree Construction Company
N.M. Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
