TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (9) TMI 771
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s filing the award and proceedings registered as suit No. 1380/94, notice was ordered to be issued to both the parties to file objections, if any, within statutory period, returnable on 7th September, 1994. IA No. 7834/94 is the objections filed on 26th August, 1994 under sections 16, 30 and 33 of the Act by respondent No. 1/UOI which is being contested by filing reply by the petitioner. 2. In said objection petition, although respondent No. 1 had taken diverse grounds for setting aside the award dated 27th January, 1994 but during the course of argument, Sh. Sanjay Jain appearing for the said respondent had only pressed the ground taken in sub-para (c) of para No. 1 thereof. It is alleged in this sub-para that the arbitrator erroneously i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e value of contract ? While dealing with that point, it was held in para No. 9 of the report (on pages 295-296) :- "This Court in A.T. Brijpal Singh v. State of Gujarat, while interpreting the provisions of section 73 of the Contract Act, has held that damages can be claimed by a contractor where the Government if proved to have committed breach by improperly rescinding the contract and for estimating the amount of damages court should made a broad evaluation instead of going into minute details. It was specifically held that where in the works contract, the party entrusting the work committed breach of contract, the contractor is entitled to claim the damages for loss of profit which he expected to earn by undertaking the works contract. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pradesh. After approving the grant of damages in case of breach of contract, the Court further held that the appellant Court was not justified to interfere with finding of fact given by the trial Court regarding quantification of the damages even if it was based upon guess work. In both the cases referred to hereinabove, 15% of the contract price was granted as damages to the contractor. In the instant case, however, the trial court had granted only 10% of the contract price, which we feel was reasonable and permissible, particularly when the High Court had concurred with the finding of the trial Court regarding breach of contract by specifically holding that 'we therefore see no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the trial Co....