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

2024 Supreme(Gau) 1480

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AT GUWAHATI (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Shri Inamul Rashid Hazarika, S/o Late Abdul Rashid Hazarika – Respondent
RFA No. 18/2016
Decided on : 13-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. B. Sarma, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. U.C. Rabha, Mr. A. Sahad.

IMPORTANT POINT
The plaintiff must substantiate claims with clear evidence; failure to do so renders the trial court's decree arbitrary and subject to remand.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 96 and 151 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 5 - Appeal against judgment and decree for recovery of Rs.51,34,336/- - The trial court decreed the suit based on insufficient evidence and failed to consider the jurisdiction and limitation issues raised by the appellants - The court found the claim vague and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 10, 12, 14, 15)

(B) Burden of Proof - The burden of proof lies on the party asserting the affirmative issue, and the plaintiff must succeed based on the strength of his own case. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:

The respondent claimed Rs.51,34,336/- for work done under various contracts with the appellants, who contended the suit was not maintainable due to jurisdiction and limitation issues, and that the claim was inflated and unsupported by evidence.

Findings of Court:

The trial court's decree was found erroneous due to lack of evidence and failure to address jurisdiction and limitation issues, leading to the remand of the case for fresh trial.

Issues: The main issues included the maintainability of the suit, jurisdiction, limitation, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the plaintiff must substantiate his claims with clear evidence and that the trial court's findings were arbitrary and lacked logical reasoning.

Result: The impugned judgment and decree were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants and also heard Mr. U.C. Rabha, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. This regular first appeal, under Section 96, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 27.04.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No.17/2003 [Title Suit No.22/2013(new)]. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 27.04.2015, the learned Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) has decreed the suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.51,34,336/- including the interest and security deposit.

3. The back ground facts leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under:-

    “The appellants/defendants herein had invited tenders from time to time from the office of the Divisional Engineer, Dibrugarh for executing certain works in the Railway Departments. The respondent/plaintiff herein had participated in the aforesaid tender process and after scrutinizing the tenders, certain works were allotted to him on different dates for execution. Thereafter, formal contract agreements were signed on various dates viz. 24.02.1987, 10.11.1987, 14.12.1988, 27.06.1989, 14.09.1990, 12.08.1991, 13.03.1992, 24.07.1992 and 07.07.1993, by the appellants and the respondent herein. Thereafter, complying with the terms of the tender document, the respondent has deposited security money and started the works at the specified sites, indicated by the appellants/defendants. While executing the works, allotted to the respondent/plaintiff, he had also received provisional payments against ad-interim bills for meeting the running expenses.

Thereafter, on completion of the aforesaid tender works, the respondent herein and the appellants jointly made inspection from time to time and recorded the same in the measurement book through its competent staffs. The respondent had given all the necessary particulars of the works i.e. the name of work allotted, the value of the works, the amount of payment received, the balance receivable and also number of the measurement books in which all the measurements were recorded in a separate sheet. Thereafter, the respondent herein submitted nine sets of documents each containing contract works agreement, details of zonal works, statement of account regarding works done by him and the respective bill amount and the provisional payment received against each zonal work and marked those documents as document Nos.1 to 9. Thereafter, the appellants herein after taking measurements, issued completion certificates to the respondent in respect of the works done by him and he was waiting to receive the balance payments against each work done by him and he has submitted two completion certificates issued by the Divisional Engineer, N.F. Railway, Dibrugarh. The total amount he has to receive from the appellants herein is Rs.51,34,336/- only. Thereafter, he had made several requests to the appellants herein to release the said amount, but the appellants have withheld the same illegally and wrongfully. Thereafter, he along with one Sajjad Mannan had filed one writ petition before this Court against the appellants herein for settlement of the bills in respect of completion of the works allotted to him. Thereafter, vide order dated 09.09.1999, this Court has directed the respondent/petitioner to prefer his claim along with copies of the writ petition, rejoinder and other documents including copy of the order in support of the claim before the appellants herein, directing the appellants to allow reasonable opportunity to the respondent/petitioner to place his claim in person during the course of examination if necessary.

Thereafter, the respondent herein along with Sajjad Mannan filed a representation mentioning particulars of work orders, tender value of such work, value/bill, payment receipt, balance pay

        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 Back to top