Back
High Court Of Calcutta
ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND TAPAN KUMAR DUTT, JJ.
JALPAIGURI ZILLA PARISHAD - Appellant
Versus
SHANKAR PRASAD HAIDER - Respondent
F. A. 219 Of 2000
Decided On : 04/08/2005
CONTRACT - SUPPLY OF GOODS - DAMAGES - INTEREST - Tender Notice - Interpretation - Contractual Obligation - Payment of Security Deposit - Deduction for Germination - Claim for Damages - Grant of Interest.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a grower and supplier of small plants, entered into an agreement with the Defendant, Jalpaiguri Zilla Parishad, to supply seed coconut and seed aricanut pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender. The Plaintiff supplied the seeds to Alipurduar and Maynaguri, but the Defendant deducted 5% of the bill amount as security for germination and paid the balance amount. The Plaintiff claimed damages for loss of profits, alleging that he was not allowed to supply the contracted quantity of seeds and that the seeds supplied at Maynaguri were of inferior quality. The Defendant denied the claim, stating that the Notice Inviting Tender was merely an invitation for quotation and that the Plaintiff had failed to secure 80% germination as per the terms of the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Notice Inviting Tender was not an agreement or contract between the parties and that the actual supply order issued by the Defendant was the final order for supply. The Court found that the Plaintiff had admitted that he had received payment for the seeds supplied to Alipurduar and Maynaguri on the basis of 62% germination. The Court also found that the Plaintiff had not suffered any damages or loss and was not entitled to a money decree.
Issues: 1. Whether the Notice Inviting Tender issued by the Defendant was an agreement or contract between the parties. 2. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to damages for loss of profits. 3. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to interest on the amount claimed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Notice Inviting Tender was merely an invitation for quotation and did not constitute an agreement or contract between the parties. 2. The Plaintiff had failed to prove that he had suffered any damages or loss and was therefore not entitled to damages. 3. Section 61 of the Interest Act had no application in the present case as the Plaintiff had not suffered any damages or loss.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order passed by the Court below were set aside. The cross-objection was dismissed. There was no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 14-1-2000 passed in Money suit No. 7 of 1997 by a learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Jalpaigurl.
( 2 ) THE said suit, being a Money Suit No. 7 of 1997, was filed by the Plain tiff/respondent/cross-objector praying for a decree for a sum of Rs. 3,60,677. 00 against the Defendant/appellant for loss of profits, damages and compensation.
( 3 ) THE case of the Plaintiff/respondent is that, as a grower and supplier of small plants of different varieties of trees under the name and style of 'sankar Narayan Nursery', the Plaintiff/respondent agreed to supply seed coconut and seed aricanut of East-Coast Tall Variety pursuant to a Notice Inviting Quotation/tender No. 16/94/95.
( 4 ) IT is the plaint case that such quotation was issued by the Appellant for supply of the aforesaid items in Malbazar, moinaguri, Falacata, Majirahat and alipurduar.
( 5 ) THE plaint case is that the offer of the plaintiff/respondent was accepted by the appellant and such acceptance is communicated by a Memo dated 10-10-1994 and the Plaintiff was requested to supply 62500 numbers of seed-coconut of East-Coast Tall variety within fifteen days.
( 6 ) IT is also the plaint case that an agreement was executed, which was kept in the office of the Appellant No. 2 and the Plaintiff/respondent was informed by the appellant that the security would be deducted from his bill @ 5 per cent as guarantee for 80% germination of the seed-coconut. The said order of supply was subsequently modified and the Plaintiff/respondent was requested to supply 37500 numbers of seed-coconut to Alipurduar and 25000 numbers of seed-coconut to the Sub-Assistant Engineer, Moinaguri.
( 7 ) THE plaint case is that in compliance with the said direction, the plaintiff supplied 37500 numbers of seed-coconut to alipurduar along with 25000 numbers of seed-coconut to the Sub-Assistant Engineer, moinaguri. But, the said Sub-Assistant Engineer. Moinaguri received only 20250 numbers of seed-coconut and returned 4750 number of seeds stating that the Defendants have no space for plantation of the seeds and, accordingly, the Plaintiff had to take back 4750 numbers of seeds to his Nursery and those seeds were ultimately damaged and became unusable.
( 8 ) THE plaint case is that a bill was submitted to the Appellant for the supply of 37500 number of seed-coconut, which were supplied at Alipurduar and the said bill was received on 16-11-1994 by the Sub-Assistant Engineer, Alipurduar.
( 9 ) IT is also admitted that against the said bill, the plaintiff was paid an amount of Rs. 2,67,000/- after deducting 5 per cent of the bill amounting to Rs. 14,062/- as security for germination.
( 10 ) THE plaint case is that the Plaintiff/ respondent submitted a further bill for Rs. 1,31,625/- against delivery of 20250 seed-coconut for Maynaguri. But, against that, the Defendant paid a sum of Rs. 75. 895. 00 leaving a balance of Rs. 55,730. 00.
( 11 ) THE further plaint case is that such deduction of the bill amount is without any basis and that if the Plaintiff/respondent was allowed to supply the contracted quantity of seed-coconut and seed-aricanut, the total value of the supplies would have been rs. 20,30,000. 00. Out of that, the Plaintiff/ respondent could only supply seeds worth rs. 3,98,800/- at Alipurduarand Maynaguri and seeds worth Rs. 30,875/- were lost and damaged due to carelessness and negligence of the Appellant.
( 12 ) THE Plaintiff/ respondent further alleged that it suffererd a loss of Rs. 16,00,312/- and also suffered a loss of damage @ 15 per cent of the value of the balance supply. The Plaintiff suffered a loss of profit @ 15 per cent of the aforesaid amount, 15 per cent of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 16,00,312. 00 comes to Rs. 2,40,000. 00 and the Plaintiff is entitled to be paid the said amount from the Appellant.
( 13 ) IT is also the plainl case that the appellants did not terminate the contrac
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
