Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
M.S. Sonak, Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.
C.M. Abdul Khadar – Appellant
Versus
State of Goa – Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 116, 232 of 2008
Decided On : 15-02-2019
Delay in Completion of Works - Civil Suit - Interest at 6% p.a. - Refund of Wrongly Recovered Amount - [FINAL BILL, SECURITY DEPOSIT, IDLING CHARGES, MOBILIZATION EXPENSES, ADDITIONAL PAYMENT, DELAY COMPENSATION, ADDITIONAL LIFT PAYMENT, EARTH WORK PAYMENT, DAMAGE RECTIFICATION, GRANULAR SUB BARE WORK, TACKCOAD WORK, ASPHALT WORK, JEEP NON-SUPPLY REFUND, DELAY COMPENSATION REFUND, ROYALTY REFUND, LATERITE BOULDER BREAKING REFUND, LABORATORY APPARATUS REFUND] - The Plaintiff was awarded interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the Suit. The Defendants were directed to refund the amounts wrongfully recovered by them to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was also awarded an additional amount of Rs. 25.00 lakhs, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the Suit.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff, a PWD Contractor, filed a Civil Suit against the State of Goa and another seeking a Decree in the amount of Rs. 5,00,59,876/-, alleging hindrances and breaches of contract by the Defendants in the execution of certain works. The Defendants denied the Plaintiff's contentions and urged that the suit be dismissed in its entirety.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the delay in completion of the works was partly attributable to the Defendants and partly to the Plaintiff. The Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the Suit and directed the Defendants to refund the amounts wrongfully recovered by them to the Plaintiff. The Court also awarded an additional amount of Rs. 25.00 lakhs, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the Suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the delay in completion of the works was on account of hindrances and breaches of the contract, committed by the Defendants, or the Plaintiff alone is to be blamed for the same? 2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to award any amount in terms of Schedule A, as now incorporated in paragraph 6 of this Judgment and Order? 3. Whether the Award made by the Trial Court in the impugned Judgment and Decree warrants interference? 4. Whether any order is required to be made towards payment of interest and costs, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the delay in completion of the works was partly attributable to the Defendants and partly to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was entitled to interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the Suit and the Defendants were directed to refund the amounts wrongfully recovered by them to the Plaintiff. The Court also awarded an additional amount of Rs. 25.00 lakhs, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the Suit.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the First Appeal No. 232/2008 and partly allowed First Appeal No. 116/2008. The Defendants were directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the amounts awarded in the impugned Judgment and Decree, from the date of institution of the Suit. Additionally, the Defendants were directed to pay the Plaintiff an amount of Rs. 25.00 lakhs, along with interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of institution of the Suit. There was no order as to costs.
M.S. Sonak, J.
1. Heard. The learned Counsel for the parties.
2. In both these appeals, the challenge is to the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 29 December 2007, made by the Ad-hoc District Judge, (FTC-I), Panaji (Trial Court) in Civil Suit No. 48/2006. The operative portion of the Judgment and Order reads as follows:
"The suit is partly decreed. The defendants are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 4,07,000/- deducted by the defendants towards the non supply of jeep, with interest @ of 6% per annum from 19.2.2001 till date of actual payment and the defendants are directed to pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 53,800 deducted by the defendants towards compensation for delay with interest @ 6% per annum from 31.3.2004 till actual payment and the defendants are directed to pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 1,21,832/- deducted by the defendants towards royalty @ interest of 6% per annum from 31.3.2004 till actual payment and the defendants are directed to pay to the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- deducted by the defendants towards laboratory apparatus, with interest @ 6% per annum from 30.9.2004 till actual payment and the defendants are directed to pay to the plaintiff final bill amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this judgment till the actual payment of the final bill amount and the security deposit, of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 31.3.2005 till actual payment.
Decree be drawn up accordingly."
3. Civil Suit No. 48/2006 was instituted by C.M. Abdul Khadar, PWD Contractor (Plaintiff) against the State of Goa and another (Defendants) seeking, inter-alia, a Decree in an amount of Rs. 5,00,59,876/- (rupees five crores fifty nine thousand eight hundred seventy six only), together with interest @ 18% per annum on the said amount. It was the case of the Plaintiff that he was awarded the work of "widening and improvement of geometrics of NH 4-A between Km.133/600 to 137/00 in Goa" and in the execution of such works, the Defendants created hindrances and committed breaches of contract, thereby entitling the Plaintiff to the aforesaid amount. The Defendants denied the Plaintiff's contentions and had urged that the suit be dismissed in its entirety.
4. Accordingly, First Appeal No. 232/2008 is instituted by the Defendants, aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree and the award made therein. First Appeal No. 116/2008 has been instituted by the Plaintiff, aggrieved by the denial of the entire reliefs claimed by the Plaintiff in the suit. In a sense, therefore, these are the cross appeals against the same impugned Judgment and Decree and, therefore, it is only appropriate that both these appeals are taken up together and disposed of by a common Judgment and Order. In fact, the learned Counsel for the parties agree that this would be an appropriate course of action to adopt in a matter of this nature.
5. To the Plaint, in Civil Suit No. 48/2006, the Plaintiff had appended "Schedule A" in which the Plaintiff had furnished details/description of various claims set out in the plaint. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, some of the claims came to be allowed and others rejected. The Plaintiff's First Appeal No. 116/2008, therefore, concerns the rejected claims and the Defendants' First Appeal No. 232/2008 concerns the claims granted by the impugned Judgment and Decree.
6. In this appeal, however, Mr. Padiyar, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, on the basis of the instructions from the Plaintiff, made it clear that the Plaintiff was scaling down some of the claims and even not pressing for some of the claims that came to be rejected in the impugned Judgment and Order.
7. In order to appreciate the aforesaid, we transcribe Schedule A to the plaint, along with remarks to indicate which of the claims came to be granted by the impugned Judgment and De
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
