2012 (10) TMI 697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is & Co., for Respondent. ORAL JUDGMENT : 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 wo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3,05,654/by endorsing it as full and final payment. 5. 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 amou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssion that the invocation of liquidated damage costs was contrary 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 li....