Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3369
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
P.S. TEJI, J.
Food Corporation of India – Appellant
Versus
Raghubir Chand Gupta – Respondent
RFA No. 17 of 2007
Decided On : 31-10-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Dewan, Adv. with Mr. Samarjeet Singh, Junior Engineer (Civil) of FCI.
The court emphasized the importance of establishing authorization for filing a suit and held the plaintiff responsible for delays in completion of work, influencing the decision to dismiss the suit.
Headnote:
Food Corporation of India Act - Recovery of Damages - 1964 - [Food Corporation of India Act, 1964, Section 3(1)(a), Section 12] - The court discussed the authority of the person filing the suit, entitlement of the plaintiff for the suit amount and interest, and the delay in completion of work. The interpretation of the contractual obligations, delay in completion of work, and the liability for costs and expenses were key legal provisions influencing the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a statutory organization under the Food Corporation of India Act, filed a suit for recovery of damages against the defendant for failure to complete construction work within the stipulated time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the authorization of the person filing the suit and the entitlement to recover damages from the defendant. The suit was dismissed accordingly.
Issues: The issues included the authorization of the person filing the suit, entitlement of the plaintiff for the suit amount and interest, and the delay in completion of work.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in completion of work and the liability for costs and expenses were attributed to the plaintiff's own delays and latches, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Final Decision: The present appeal was dismissed for being devoid of merit.
P.S. TEJI, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of damages/compensation for Rs.2,53,378.26/- against the defendant/respondent was dismissed.
2. The facts enumerating from the plaint filed before the Court below are that the plaintiff/appellant is a statutory organization established under Food Corporation of India Act, 1964 and the appellant Corporation floated a Tender Enquiry for construction of 2500 M.Ts. Capacity Godown at UNA, H.P. The defendant/respondent submitted his offer alongwith tender documents and the same was accepted being the lowest by the plaintiff Corporation vide Registered Letter no.Civil Engg/HP/UNA-1/88/Vol-II dt. 20/12/1988 as defendant’s quoted unconditional offer of 13.82% above the estimated cost of Rs.17,24,160/- put to tender. The tendered amount works out to be Rs.19,62,439.91/-. Hence the defendant/respondent was called upon to start the work at once and the entire construction was to be completed within a period of 9 months as provided in tender enquiry and a period of 9 months was to be reckoned from 7th day after the date of issue of Zonal Officer (N) Telegram No.CE1(7)/87-HP/NZ/Vol-II/5054 dated 05.12.1988. It is submitted that the amount claimed by the defendant/respondent was regularly paid to him for the work being done by him. However, time was further extended by the plaintiff Corporation on defendant’s request but despite further extensions the defendant failed to finish the work and stopped the work on 13/05/90. Thereafter, plaintiff/appellant Corporation served a show cause notice dated 06.06.1990 vide registered letter no.Engg/HP/UNA/90 under sub clause III(A) of the agreement arrived between the parties to the defendant. But the defendant/respondent failed to put forward any satisfactory explanation to the plaintiff corporation and they had no alternative except to terminate the contract vide letter dated 18.07.1991. It was further stated that under the risk and cost of the plaintiff corporation, the work was completed by them. It is stated that the plaintiff/appellant Corporation suffered actual loss of Rs.2,53,378.26/- due to non fulfillment of the contractual obligation by the defendant and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant.
3. In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellant/ defendant, it was stated that the suit was neither signed, verified nor it was instituted by the duly authorized and competent person. It was also stated that the suit was barred by limitation; there was no cause of action which exists in favor of the plaintiff and the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction. On merits, the case of the plaintiff/appellant was denied. It was submitted that stipulated period of completion of contract was rendered meaningless in view of acts of omission and commission on the part of the plaintiff. On account of various defaults and lapses by the plaintiff, the work could not be completed. It was denied that the defendant adopted delaying tactics in completion of work. The defendant expressed his inability to proceed with the work in view of mounting finance.
4. Replication to the written statement was filed on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Court below :
(1) Whether the plaint has been signed, verified and the suit instituted by a competent and authorized person? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount? OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? OPP
(4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time-barred? OPD
(5) Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action? OPD
(6) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpo
