SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Del) 114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
GURDIAL SINGH & ORS. .…..Plaintiffs
Versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA …….Defendant
CS(OS)2000/1995
Decided On : 04.2.2010

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Raman Kapur with Mr.Manish Kumar, Advocates.
Mr.Deepak Dewan, Advocate.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 20, Order 7, Rule 11—Suit for damages for violation of agreement—Major part of cause of action accrued in Delhi—Court at Delhi has jurisdiction to entertain the suit—Defendant is liable to pay damages. [Paras 39, 42, 66, 67, 73, 74 and 76]

       (B) Evidence Act, 1872—Section 115—Principle of Promissory Estoppel has been formulated by Court to safeguard interest of justice—It is aimed at softening rigidity of law. [Para 72]

JUDGMENT

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. Plaintiffs are 21 in number. They are residents of Taran Taran, District Amritsar, Punjab. They had entered into an agreement with the defendant i.e. the Food Corporation of India a public sector undertaking of the Government of India for specific performance/damages for breach of their agreement pursuant to which the defendant had agreed to take 20000 metric tons of space on which godowns were to be constructed by the plaintiff for storage/warehouses purpose of the defendant.

2. It is stated that the defendant has committed a breach of the agreement dated 4.7.1980 extended by the subsequent agreements dated 29.7.1985, 1.11.1985, 3.1.1986. In terms of the agreement dated 4.7.1980 plaintiff had agreed to construct godowns of 20000 metric tons capacity at Taran Taran District, Amritsar possession of which was to be taken by the defendant for the purposes of storage of cement. However, the state government did not allocate the cement to the defendant in time, the godowns also could not be constructed within the stipulated time i.e. upto 30.11.1981. Extension of time was requested on 3.12.1981 which was granted vide letter dated 17.6.1982; on 29.6.1982 a further extension of time was sought by the plaintiffs.

3. Plaintiffs had taken a loan of Rs.20 lakhs from the Oriental Bank of Commerce for the construction of the said godowns. Extension of time was however not granted/communicated in spite of applications to the said effect having been made by the plaintiffs vide communications dated 4.6.1983, 8.8.1983 and 22.3.1984.

4. In July 1985 defendant gave an advertisement in the newspaper asking for covered storage space to be made available for godowns; earnest money of Rs.10,000/- was required to be submitted by 29.7.1985. Plaintiff made his offer of handing over 15000 metric tons capacity of space at Taran Taran District Amritsar for the purposes of godowns . This offer was accompanied by earnest money i.e. a draft amount of Rs.10,000/-.

5. On 1.11.1985 representatives of the plaintiff met the negotiation committee of the defendant. Plaintiff on the said date filled up the requisite performa for the agreement to hand over possession of 15000 metric tons of godown space by 1.5.1987 at New Delhi. Plaintiff had agreed to the offer of the defendant at the rate of Rs.1 per sq.ft. per month for a period of five years extendable by a further two years for taking the godowns on rent. This was in terms of the letter dated 3.1.1986 issued by the Zonal office at New Delhi addressed to the Senior Regional Manager, FCI, Chandigarh with the copy to the plaintiff and the Manager of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Taran Taran.

6. On 22.4.1987 godowns of 15000 metric tons capacity were ready for possession; remaining 5000 metric tons with open plinth were also completed which was communicated vide letter of dated 23.4.1987. Plaintiff had asked the senior manager of the defendant to arrange for inspection and to take possession of all the godowns.

7. On 29.4.1987 plaintiff addressed a similar letter to the Zonal Manager, North asking for arrangement for inspection to be made. On 24.6.1987, Assistant Manager, FCI, Chandigarh visited the godowns and found them to be completed. He gave his report dated 30.6.1987 to the District Magistrate, Amritsar.

8. On 5.11.1987, godowns of 15000 metric tons capacity were completed by the plaintiff in all respects and the same had been inspected by their architect. In terms of the architect?s report dated 5.11.1987 plaintiff requested the defendant to take immediate possession of the godwon vide his letter dated 10.11.1987.

9. On 3.12.1987 Harmit Singh inspected the godowns constructed by the plaintiffs in terms of the instructions which had been issued to him by the District Manager, FCI which were dated 27.11.1987; report was submitted on 3.12.1987.

10. Defendant in spite of repeated requests has failed to take over the possession of the completed godows. On 18.12.







































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top