To avoid protracting this litigation any longer, we gave opportunity to learned counsel for the respondent to prepare the case on this point.
However, voluntary payments for the benefit of the children, not made pursuant to a court order, may not be credited against the amounts due pursuant to a judgment of divorce or an order see LiGreci v.
Upon the rival contentions being noticed, the order dated June 19, continued the subsisting interim order and expeditious directions were given for affidavits to be filed.
Item 31 and all sub-items thereunder in addendum 4 relating to services for engine alternators stood renumbered as item 35 with its sub-items in addendum 4.
The third one conceived is that it could become legally impossible to get the sale deed registered.
The intention of any piece of communication is for the sender to get the desired result when the receiver has interpreted what is being sent through the channels. Thus we arc of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the two terms afore-referred to bore important contingencies, i.
The expression "to clear it all" and the firm finality in the publication of "the revised consolidated SOR" would admit of no other construction but that it was such modified SOR that bidders had to adhere to. The petitioners say that the revised SOR of September 6,particularly in the context of the words that preceded the table, could only imply that the entirety of the original SOR stood replaced by the modified SOR that was published as addendum 4.
The background of this action is stated in Abizadeh v.
ACME, no loading has been necessitated. If the words are clear, there is very little the court can do about it. Language is but a tool in the communication process. For, the document was intended for bidders and its interpretation lies in what it conveyed rather than what it intended to convey.
This compromise was recorded by the Court on 5.
On the admitted facts appearing from the record itself, learned counsel for the respondent, was unable to show that all or any of these averments in the plaint disclose a cause of action giving rise to a triable issue. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions.
The items for which ACME Telepower were to be loaded by the highest price quoted by any other bidder as per sub Clause It is a direct fight between the petitioner company and the fourth respondent as to who is entitled to be regarded as the lowest bidder, or L-1 in tender parlance.
The opening narrative of Addendum 4. Such conduct of the respondent, as it appears to us, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, was highly objectionable and unreasonable, disentitling him to seek relief of specific performance for sale of the house in question.
The interpretation of that which has been communicated in writing should lend more towards how it is capable of being understood rather than how it was intended to be understood. The price bids were opened in February, It contained an important term to the following effect as translated by us, the original being in Hindi: The plaint averments specify the grounds on which the decree dated The third section covered the general conditions of contract and gave details on the performance security, warranty, prices, sub-contracts, liquidated damages and arbitration.
So far as the present agreement for sale was concerned, she took the step of applying for necessary permission to the Competent Authority, Nagpur on March 3, The principle of awarding contract to the lowest tenderer applies when all things are equal. From, Clause 13 of the said addendum which deals with the engine alternators, it is clear that the schedule of requirement as mentioned in the earlier addendum No.Appellant, the 1st Respondent and the 8th Respondent (Insurance Company).
Before MACT the Appellant claimed that he had sold the car, on 7th May,to one Smt. M. K. Bhavani. This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York ReportsNo.
LAW - Download as Word Doc .doc /.docx), PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online. appellant who is mother of respondent no.
1 and mother in law of respondent no. 2, claimed in the proceedings filed before Ld. trial Court that she was owner in possession of flat no.
A2, Baba Banda Bahadur Apartment. The appellant herein Deokabai is an aged widow residing in a portion of a house with her daughter and grand children.
On she entered into an agreement to sell that portion of the house in her possession with Uttam, the respondent. Smt. Patasibai & Ors Vs. Ratanlal [ One Motilal who owned Goyal Talkies entered into a partnership with respondent Ratanlal representing the joint family firm of M/s.
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the suit was barred by virtue of Rule 3A of Order 23 and even otherwise tile plaint averments did.Download