High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S United Engineers vs The National Highways Authority … on 22 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M/S United Engineers vs The National Highways Authority … on 22 October, 2008
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
~ 1 - WP308S9.08

m rm maxi COURT or mmwrum  §%
cmcm-r smear AT DHARWAI).  % V ? %  A 
mm!) 11-11% 'run mm on or  T 
HOB' am am. wsncn n.v.&mmm'ma 
WRIT PETITION No.3og:_;;9 oF"g¢)oa ;GM}i2ES1VV :1 VA 

1 M/S UNITED ENGINEERS [MflLA'f €$IAf'> . ._
ESSAR moascrs Lm -;'--uE;5M;'ssA~R_;J\z§~% 

 

1: xx; MARC}, MAHALAXNEE' _ V
aguromax    ,, * --«
THROUGH £T$f{.3QINP:VEN'Pfli?§3 'FA-i?FP1E§2 "
M/S E:ssA1:¢~vPi%QqEc'z%s LTD"  A '  'V 
BIRECTOR 85 !ufi_.§)£i#aB-ER', ,3v_,Bo;-lap ,
sniwxriaaxaw'---'._'   
s/0. TV KRIi§H3'§AM'JE'TH? «-- A 
AGED~?s.yp;ARs*;,:  >' 
\No.:.s59/7,":.L;«3:me._s,   _ _-

SHIVAKEJMAR B&DAvAms_:;" '-

Hamnx mas,' DAVAN3GER'E

2 M/S ESSIER PRQJ-EC?SV'£flu'D
REP; :3? we D.I§2EC'I'0R

f;*'§g_  "  ..... 

.  . s';os12zTvKR:sHNAMURT1-:Y

» _ :".,G};§D_ $'.5'¥%VE'ARs
 ' ,4: 5c~oI«zD£;N'.:i_'

[BY SRI. H R .3§;prIU1é',..Afi--v.,:

THES WRIT PETYPION IS FILEDLSNDER A:2*mLEs'=225/227 or
THE cousmvnon op' INDIA, 'mayxue  DIRECT Ti-IE
RESPONDENT NOT TO ENTRt}S'I' rm «Am 'msw coimmmnk THE

comma FOR BALANCE won}; on iyacrgagss wrm RESPECT TO
THE UPGRADATION AND ‘ “1@i~.2HA31;;:*rA’I?:0N _woRK on THE
HARIHARA-HAVERI s2:c’r1or~: [KM_N0′.234 T0, Kg; 310.340] 01+’ THE NH
No.4 UNDER CONTRACTgNO.’3TTCiTiiM-HAYFERI/NH4 D’I’.16.1.02
AND I ‘T :

mzs t=>E§ri*f:’g3;ai:”-:;%;:1~}:1x~§e_c3\.1s; ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
coum’ MADE *1*xg1a–:,;;=gg;,Lov«:vz.1s1c3:+ ._ A

who had been awarded

contrary: ‘far upgradatjon of NH4 between

% A.«:;;::i% “E.i_ave:;iHm£.A111der package 5 is aggrieved by the

respofident ‘i:3,’:”é:ntrusting the contract to some other person

H the accounts of the petifioner.

In a mafia’ invoking execution of work under a

._4’4¢onn’act and where the respondent has t the

‘(if said to have been committed by the

contract even in the year 2007 and has been taking further

— 3 – WP3085908
steps to complete the contract by availing of the serviaoes of

any other altemative contractor even in terms of the cpntract
is not a fit matter either for examination or for

the resptlndent from going ahead with such I, ~

3. Remedy for a person like the ‘ .

breach of contract on the part of

up to damages which viii:

jmisdiction and memfon; g~’amea earlier is

vacated and the writ