Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 16 MARCH 2022

Aneja Constructions (India) Ltd V. Grim-Tech Projects (I) Pvt Ltd & Ors

HSA Advocates
Explore more from HSA Advocates

Aneja Constructions (India) Ltd (ACIL) and Grim-Tech Projects (I) Pvt Ltd (GTPL) had executed principal work order on March 07, 2013 for carrying out pile foundation at Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Plant...

IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Manan Shukla
Manan Shukla
Ashish Anand
Ashish Anand
Author LinkedIn connections

Delhi High Court | OMP (COMM) 464/2019

HSA Viewpoint

The judgment demonstrates the need for supporting evidence to claim losses suffered due to overstay at the site. The good practice remains to have the supporting evidence for Tribunal's appreciation.

Background facts

  • Aneja Constructions (India) Ltd (ACIL) and Grim-Tech Projects (I) Pvt Ltd (GTPL) had executed principal work order on March 07, 2013 for carrying out pile foundation at Muzaffarpur Thermal Power Plant of Kanti Bijlee Utpadan Nigam Ltd. The respective work order was amended on July 24, 2013.
  • GTPL had submitted bills for INR 2,94,55,392 and claimed that an amount of INR 1,00,07,985 was due and payable by ACIL. ACIL had acknowledged that INR 1,00,07,985 was due to GTPL. GTPL also claimed that its equipment which was to be used for piling work were lying idle for almost 2 years and could have been deployed at other sites. Accordingly, GTPL also sought compensation for overstay of the equipment

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Section 138 Of The Negotiable Instruments Act: What The Supreme Court’s New Procedural Guidelines Mean For Cheque-Bounce Cases

A cheque is supposed to offer something close to certainty in a commercial transaction. When a cheque is issued, the recipient ordinarily expects that it will be honoured when presented. A dishonoured cheque, therefore, is not merely a failed payment; it can have wider consequences for the credibility and discipline of commercial dealings.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Article

From Permission To Approval: Decoding The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code Amendment 2026

The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2026 (L. A. BILL No. XXVIII OF 2026) represents a significant reform in the regulation of government land transactions in Maharashtra. Introduced in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on 24th March 2026, it focuses primarily on amending Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, a provision that governs the sale, transfer, redevelopment, use of additional Floor Space Index (“FSI”), transfer of Transferable Development Rights (“TDR”), and change in use of government land.
IndiaGovernment, Public Sector
HSA Advocates
HSA Advocates
Article

Major Reform In Maharashtra: Sanad Requirement Removed For Land Conversion

The Government of Maharashtra has taken a significant step towards enhancing ease of doing business by rationalising the framework governing agricultural land conversion. As per the recent amendment to the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC), notified on 31 December 2025, and the Government Resolution dated 10 February 2026, the requirement of obtaining a separate sanad or non-agricultural permission from the Collector has been abolished for permissible non-agricultural uses under the Development Plan or Regional Plan under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP).
IndiaReal Estate and Construction
HSA Advocates
HSA Advocates
Article

More Than A Signature: Supreme Court Clarifies When Non-Signatories Can Be Bound By Arbitration

The Supreme Court, in KKH Finvest Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Ashiesh Shukla & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1498, has reaffirmed an important principle governing the reference of disputes involving non-signatories to arbitration. The Hon’ble Court held that the absence of a signature on an arbitration agreement is not, by itself, determinative of whether a person can be bound by the arbitration agreement.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
HSA Advocates
HSA Advocates