IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Food Corporation Of India – Appellant
Versus
Heirs Of Kanabhai Somabhai (Decd.) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant – Food Corporation of India (original defendant) under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 23.07.2001 passed by the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), at Jamnagar (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Special Civil Suit No. 98 of 1985, whereby, the learned Judge has partly allowed the suit filed by the original plaintiffs - respondents herein for recovery of damages and directed the appellant - Corporation to pay Rs.4,46,100/- to the respondents and also rejected the counter claim filed by the appellant.
2. The brief facts leading to present appeal in nut-shell are as under :
2.1 One Kanabhai Somabhai (Plaintiff-respondent, since deceased) was appointed as a stevedore clearing, handling and Transport contractor at Bedi/Rozi port for the period from 04.09.1982 to 03.09.1984 by the appellant after negotiating and telegram of acceptances was sent by the appellant to the deceased respondent which was received by him at Jamnagar. It was alleged by the deceased respondent that on several occasions, the appellant-Corporation had withheld the amount a
Bihar State Electricity Board Patna and Others vs. M/s. Green Rubber Industries and Others
M/s. H.M. Kamalluddin Ansari and Co. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Timblo Irmasus Ltd. vs. J.A.M. Sequiera
M/s. Murlidhar Chiranjilal vs. M/s. Harishchandra Dwarkadas
Thawardas Perumal vs. Union of India
Union of India vs. Kishorilal Gupta
State of Karnataka vs. Shri Rameshwar Rice Mills
The contractor is not liable for destination shortages absent sufficient evidence, affirming the court's findings on liability for withheld amounts.
The court affirmed that failure to demonstrate actual loss precludes the forfeiture of security deposits, underscoring the principle that a breach must cause substantial damages to warrant penalties.
The court ruled that claims for damages in breach of contract require proof of actual loss, which was not established by the plaintiffs, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
The court affirmed the right to forfeit a security deposit for non-completion of work as per contract terms, emphasizing the necessity of proving actual damages.
Point of law: doctrine of forfeiture in the case of earnest money is based on a principle completely independent of the consideration that are laid down in Section 74 of the Contract Act.
A party's entitlement to damages in breach of contract cases must correlate with actual damages suffered; security deposits can be refunded when no loss is incurred by the other party.
The main legal point established is that in contractual matters, the court may intervene to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism by the government bodies, especially if the actions violate the equalit....
Damages for loss of expected profits can be claimed in breach of contract cases, provided the breach is established and the loss is evidenced.
The judgment establishes that failure to disclose material defects in the property and the lack of opportunity to remedy the breach disentitles the seller from forfeiting the deposit. It also emphasi....
Unilateral deductions of demurrage charges from a contractor's bills are impermissible without proper determination of liability as per contractual obligations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.