<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (10) TMI 1846 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472377</link>
    <description>Additional contractual compensation requires proof that work fell outside the agreed scope and that the parties agreed to pay separately for it. A comprehensive scope covering architectural, structural and building-services coordination, together with an augmentation purchase order that identified no distinct extra work, did not establish such entitlement. Unpaid milestone payments require proof of completion of the contractual deliverables triggering each payment stage. The consultant did not produce CAD files, finished or GFC drawings, or evidence of dispatch of complete multidisciplinary drawings; an unsupported list of drawings was insufficient. The recovery claim therefore lacked proof of both contractual entitlement and performance conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2026 21:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=928979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1846 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472377</link>
      <description>Additional contractual compensation requires proof that work fell outside the agreed scope and that the parties agreed to pay separately for it. A comprehensive scope covering architectural, structural and building-services coordination, together with an augmentation purchase order that identified no distinct extra work, did not establish such entitlement. Unpaid milestone payments require proof of completion of the contractual deliverables triggering each payment stage. The consultant did not produce CAD files, finished or GFC drawings, or evidence of dispatch of complete multidisciplinary drawings; an unsupported list of drawings was insufficient. The recovery claim therefore lacked proof of both contractual entitlement and performance conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472377</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>