https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296783 The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation due to a partial payment made within the extended period. It was determined that the contract was with defendant No. 2 and not defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 was found liable to pay commercial rates instead of DAVP rates. The plaintiff was awarded the balance principal amount for work done, along with pre-suit and future interest. No damages were granted due to lack of credible evidence. The suit was decreed for the specified amount with interest, to be distributed by a Receiver to the respective publications. en-us Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Aug 2021 10:50:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296783 The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation due to a partial payment made within the extended period. It was determined that the contract was with defendant No. 2 and not defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 was found liable to pay commercial rates instead of DAVP rates. The plaintiff was awarded the balance principal amount for work done, along with pre-suit and future interest. No damages were granted due to lack of credible evidence. The suit was decreed for the specified amount with interest, to be distributed by a Receiver to the respective publications. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296783