Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: deposit pre contract Court: rajasthan Page 1 of about 1,008 results (0.065 seconds)

Food Corporation of India Vs. Manipal and Sons

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1985(1)WLN780

..... mills' case air 1970 sc 1956 that the four conditions necessary for treating the amount as earnest money are as under:(1) it must be given at the moment at which the contract is concluded(2) it represents guarantee that the contract will be fulfilled or in other words, 'earnest' is given to bind the contract '(3) it is part of purchase price when the transaction is carried out(4) it is forfeited when the transaction falls through by reasons of the default or failure of the purchaser(5) unless there is ..... 8,500/-, it has been pleaded that the plaintiff, by not depositing the balance price of the balance quantity of 700 quintals of gram had committed the breach of contract and the defendant under the terms and conditions of the contract was entitled to forfeit the earnest money and also to recover loss ..... 8,500/- was deposited not as a pre-condition of an offer but as an earnest money and was, therefore, liable to be forfeited in the event of breach of contract by the plaintiff ..... was no breach on the part of plaintiff and therefore, the defendant was not entitled to make any forfeiture or recover any losections even on the breach of the contract by the plaintiff, the defendant was only entitled to resell the goods and recover the loss if any. ..... plaintiff had entered into four contracts for the purchase of 4000 quintals of gram and had deposited security deposits of rs. ..... 8500/- deposited in respect of the contract dated 24-2-69 and ..... 1000/- deposited in respect of the previous contracts, rs .....

Chetanram Ramgopal Vs. Chief Engineer, Pwd, Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1999Raj315; 2000(1)WLC137; 1999(1)WLN355

..... the petitioner an unemployed graduate felt aggrieved by the conditions of auction sale, especially condition about cash deposit of 50% of the bid amount immediately and full payment of bid amount before contract could be given, he could not get any relief by filing writ petition under article 226 ..... learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the case of petitioner is, governed by the provisions of section 5 of the act, which specifically provides that proposer of a contract cannot bind himself to keep his offer open for any definite time and that any words of promise to that effect can operate only for the benefit of the proposer and ..... it was also contended that section 5 of the act is not applicable when special condition is imposed under the contract and thus, the petitioner has no right to revoke the proposal and as such, the forfeiture of earnest money ..... the basis of affidavits is not in a position to conclude that there was no consideration and no contract other than the one which was to come into existence on the basis of tenders considered by the respondents ..... so where the highest bidder in an auction sale of a liquor shop did not deposit one-sixth of the purchase price within seven days of the auction whereupon the resale was ordered without the bid having been confirmed by the chief commissioner then the essential pre-requisites of a completed sale being missing no liability could be imposed on the auction-purchaser for payment of the deficiency in the price .....

Parvati Construction Co. Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and 40 ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : (1998)IILLJ970Raj

..... the employees engaged by him for performance of the contract of the principal employer is to collect and deposit with the principal employer his and the employees' ..... provident fund contribution is disputed by the petitioner, unless and until the dispute is adjudicated under section 7a of the act of 1952, the principal employer by issuing a unilateral order cannot direct deposit of the amount towards the provident fund contribution nor has authority to deduct it from the running bills of the contractor. ..... therefore, under this clause, it, would be within the rights of the housing board to keep in deposit 5% of the gross deposit to wards the provident fund account if necessary particulars are not furnished by the contractor of engagement of ..... counsel for the respondents that the respondents are entitled to deduct the amount under clause 38(h) of the contract entered into between the parties to safeguard the interest of the respondents as the principal employer. ..... the review order no specific directions have been issued as to what shall be the status and position of the workers, engaged by the contractors to carry out the nature of the work in building contracts as alleged by the petitioner vis-a-vis the act of 1952 and the scheme framed thereunder. ..... respondent housing board is entitled to keep 5% of the gross payment with it under the provident fund account as miscellaneous deposit till the contractor produces the clearance certificate from the department of the provident fund. .....

Parvati Construction Company Vs. Rajasthan Housing Board and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1997(3)WLC547; 1997(1)WLN569

..... the employees engaged by him for performance of the contract of the principal employer is to collect and deposit with the principal employer his and the employees contributions ..... provident fund contribution is disputed by the petitioner, unless and until the dispute is adjudicated under section 7a of the act of 1952 the principal employer by issuing a unilateral order cannot direct deposit of the amount towards the provident fund contribution nor has authority to deduct it from the running bills of the contractor. ..... , under this clause, it would be within the rights of the housing board to keep in deposit 5% of the gross deposit towards the provident fund account if necessary particulars are not furnished by the contractor of engagement of temporary ..... counsel for the respondents that the respondents are entitled to deduct the amount under clause 38(h) of the contract entered into in between the parties to safeguard the interest of the respondents as the principal employer. ..... the review order no specific directions have been issued as to what shall be the status and position of the workers, engaged by the contractors to carry out the nature of the work in building contracts as alleged by the petitioner vis-a-vis the act of 1952 and the scheme framed thereunder. ..... respondent housing board is entitled to keep 5% of the gross payment with it under the provident fund account as miscellaneous deposit till the contractor produces the clearance certificate from the department of the provident fund. .....

The State of Rajasthan Vs. Banarshi Lal's Legal Representatives and Or ...

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 1992WLN(UC)240

..... certificate in writing of the chief engineer shall be final and conclusive) shall be borne and paid by the original contractor and may be deducted from any money due to him by the government under the contract or otherwise or from his security deposit or the proceed of sale thereof, or a sufficient part thereof.in the event of any of the above courses being adopted by the chief engineer or other duly authorised engineer the contractor shall have no claim to compensation ..... clause shall not exceed 10 per cent on the estimated cost of the work as shown in the tender.clause (3) - action when whole of security deposit is forfeited:in any case in which under any clause of this contract the contractor shall have rendered himself liable to pay compensation amounting to the whole of his security deposit (whether paid in one sum or deducted by instalments) the chief engineer or other duly authorised engineer on behalf of the rajasthan government shall have ..... power to adopt any of the following courses as may deem best suited to the interest of the government:(a) to rescind the contract of which rescind notice in writing to the contractor under the hand of the chief engineer .....

State of Rajasthan Vs. Firm Anand Construction Co., Mandi

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1972Raj101; 1971(4)WLN481; 1971(4)WLN495

..... in that case it was not decided as to which article of the limitation act would apply to a suit for return of the security deposit though it was observed that having regard to the date of the cancellation and institution of the suit, the claim of the plaintiff would be barred by limitation, the contract was cancelled on 15-3-1951 and the suit was instituted on 8-10-1955 which means that the period of three years was held to be applicable to such cases. ..... thakkar lakhiram ramji, air 1962 guj 14 it was held that in a suit brought for the refund of deposit by way of security for the due performance of the contract neither article 62 nor article 60 nor article 97 of the act of 1908 applies and in the absence of any specific article application to the suit article 120 applies.13. ..... it was held there that:'where money is deposited by way of security for the due performance of a contract or otherwise under the terms of a contract and is refundable after the completion of the contract, article 62 isnot applicable to the suit for refund as the money was not received by the defendant for the plaintiff's use. ..... the essence of the causes of action for a suit for refund of a deposit is not the breach of the contract to repay it, but the fact that the transaction is a deposit which by its very nature is refundable. .....

JaIn Electricals and Contractors Vs. Riico and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2008(2)Raj1442

..... fairness is the touchstone of article 14 of the constitution of india and welfare state and its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to act in arbitrary and whimsical manner, where the delay in finalizing the contract for four months on the part of riico itself is not found to be justified, the action of forfeiting the earnest money of the contractor in these circumstances can hardly be sustained. ..... since not only the public exchequer has suffered on account of contract at much higher price in the present case due to delay on the part of concerned authorities of the respondent riico and the interest on the refund of the said security deposit has also been directed by this court, it is considered expedient that in the facts and circumstances of the case that the burden of interest to be paid on such refund does not further fall as a burden on public exchequer. ..... the bidders like the petitioner, who give their tenders and offers for execution of works contract by the public bodies like the respondent riico cannot be compelled to abide by the rates for the work to be undertaken and executed so long and much after the expiry of period of four months, when they submitted ..... of the learned counsel for the respondent riico that this period of four months was for acceptance of the offer of the petitioner and therefore, such acceptance on 25.5.2005 would bind the petitioner with the contract, in the opinion of this court, files in the face of the terms of clause 13 quoted above. .....

B.R. Oil Mills, Bharatpur Vs. Assistant Engineer (D) R.S.E.B., Bharatp ...

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : AIR1981Raj108; 1980()WLN149

..... so far as relevant for the present purposes is as follows:-- '20 agreement and security:-- (a) before commencing the work the board may require any intending consumer to enter into a formal contract and to deposit security as per schedule of charges for the payment of energy to be supplied and for the value of the meter and other apparatus installed on his premises. ..... 346 of 1973, as follows were quoted with approval :-- 'what is now to be seen is whether the board has power to demand, as security, cash deposit equivalent to three months average consumption charges,section 49 of the electricity (supply) act, 1948, empowers the board to supply electricity to any person not being a licensee upon ..... however, the non-petitioner (1) asked the petitioner in the year 1969 by its letter dated december 6, 1969 (annexure 1) to deposit in cash the security equivalent to estimated consumption charges for one month amounting to rupees 14,557/- and further required the petitioner to furnish ..... petitioner seeks to distinguish this authority on the ground that it was held to be reasonable, because on the deposits interest at the rate of 3% was to be paid, and there was a rule empowering the board to ..... was held that the board is within its right in demanding additional security in cash representing three months consumption from the consumers of electricity power in addition to initial consumption deposits already paid, and such power was derived by the board by virtue of section 49 of the supply act. .....

Ram Singh and Ors Vs. Bhikam Chand and Ors

Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur

sbc first appeal no.469/2009 ram singh & ors. vs. bhikam chand & ors. judgment dt:28. 1/2015 1/35 in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur judgment ram singh & ors. vs. bhikam chand & ors. s.b.civil first appeal no.469/2009 date of judgment :28. h january, 2015 present hon'ble dr. justice vineet kothari mr.jitendra chopra, for the appellant-defendants mr. suresh shrimali, ]. mr.sundeep bhandawat,]. for the respondent-plaintiffs. mr.ashok patel, ]. by the court: reportable1 the defendants ram singh s/o ghasi ram & ors have filed the present first appeal under section 96 cpc against bhikam chand s/o ram jeevan & anr. being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12/8/2009 passed learned addl. district judge (fast track) no.3, jodhpur in a suit for specific performance being civil suit no.603/2004 (351/2004) bhikam chand & arun kumar vs. ram singh s/o ghasi ram & ors.2. the said suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs bhikam chand & ors. on 2/11/2004 in respect of agriculture land belonging to ghasi ram, father of the present appellant-defendant ram singh, ad-measuring 28 bighas 19 biswas situated of khasra no.821, 822, 823, 824, 827 & 827/1 in village baga, tehsil & district sbc first appeal no.469/2009 ram singh & ors. vs. bhikam chand & ors. judgment dt:28. 1/2015 2/35 jodhpur, which was agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs under the agreement to sell dated 28/10/1989 at the rate of rs.51,000/- per bigha and this agreement dated 28/10/1989 .....

Ali Mohd. Abdul Mazid Vs. C.T.O.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2010(2)Raj1133

..... the urban improvement trust, bikaner for construction of some buildings in the engineering college, bikaner, the assessee was liable to pay the exemption fees in respect of such works contracts @ 1.5% of the gross value of the contract in terms of the undertaking given by it as per rule 12 of the rajasthan sales tax rules, 1995 and the learned assessing authority was justified in resorting to section ..... to him, the exemption fee at the rate notified by the state government from time to time.signature of the awarder contractorssignature of the seal of the awarder(3) a copy of such contract or the undertaking shall be furnished, to the assistant commissioner or the commercial taxes officer of the area where the office of such awarder is situated or any other officer authorized by the ..... belatedly and the same was not in accordance with rule 12 of the rules, which requires such undertaking to be filed within one month from the date of such contract and, therefore, the assessee had the option to request the assessing authority to pass his assessment on the basis of purchases and sales made by him during the ..... (b) in the case of contract covered by clause (a), where the contractor has already received some payments against the works from the awarder before exercising the opinion under sub-rule (1), he shall deposit the notified exemption fee duly computed on the payment already received by him with interest at ..... deposited within thirty days of the commencement of the work under the contract .....