Back
BIREN VAISHNAV, NISHA M. THAKORE
Kheda District Panchyat – Appellant
Versus
Arvindbhai C. Patel – Respondent
ORDER :
Biren Vaishnav, J.
1. These appeals are filed against the common judgement and decree passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (SD), Nadiad, District : Kheda, dated 02.01.1998. It is a common judgement and decree in Special Civil Suit No. 185 of 1993 filed by the Contractor Shri Arvindbhai C. Patel for recovery of Rs.8,20,792/- and in Special Civil Suit No. 205 of 1993 filed by the Kheda District Panchayat for recovery of Rs.21,44,722.32/-. By the aforesaid judgement and decree, the learned Trial Judge allowed the suit of the Contractor, namely, Special Civil Suit No. 185 of 1993 directing that an amount of Rs.8,20,792/- be recovered with 12% penal interest from the Kheda District Panchayat. Special Civil Suit No. 205 of 1993 filed by the Kheda District Panchayat was dismissed. Hence, the respective appeals.
2. Facts in brief indicate that the work order was issued on 27.03.1987 by the Kheda District Panchayat to Shri Arvind C. Patel for constructing Sarkhej – Kakarkhad Ravadavad road II stage. Since the Contractor was the last bidder whose tender amount was Rs.14,74,396.10/-, the contract was awarded to the Contractor. The date of completion was stipulated to be 26.06.1988.
2.1 It
A contractor is entitled to recover damages for loss of profit when delays are caused by the other party's breach of contract, and penalties cannot be imposed on the contractor under such circumstanc....
A fundamental breach of contract occurs when one party fails to perform essential obligations, justifying claims for damages by the aggrieved party.
The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit for damages due to insufficient evidence and the contractor's failure to complete the work as per the contract.
The court established that an Employer's failure to fulfill contractual obligations can invalidate penalties imposed on a contractor for delays, emphasizing fairness in administrative decisions.
The dismissal of the appeal underscores the necessity for the claimant to substantiate their claims within the limitation period, as per Article 18 of the Limitation Act.
The judgment clarified the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the application of the Limitation Act, and the entitlement of the plaintiff to claim losses incurred due to non-cooperation from the defend....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the terms of the contract, including the dispute resolution mechanism, and the court's limited revisional powers in i....
The court upheld the binding nature of the contract, ruling that the Plaintiff's claims were untenable due to failure to exercise contractual options and were barred by limitation.
The lack of privity of contract and failure to establish a cause of action were central to the court's decision.
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
