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
(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:-
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
Vidhyadhar v. Mankikrao & Anr., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 573
The plaintiff must substantiate claims with clear evidence; failure to do so renders the trial court's decree arbitrary and subject to remand.
Contractors must adhere to measurement protocols outlined in contract agreements; failure by the other party to fulfill their obligations does not negate a claimant's right to recover amounts due.
Fraud allegations require specific pleadings with particulars under CPC Order VI Rule 4; vague pleas rejected. Limitation for work recovery runs from contract-specified final bill settlement date. Pr....
The lack of privity of contract and failure to establish a cause of action were central to the court's decision.
Civil Courts have jurisdiction to hear claims under construction contracts barred from arbitration, provided they arise within the limitation period set by specific contract conditions.
The court clarified misapplications of the Limitation Act and confirmed entitlement to claims based on government notifications regarding minimum wage increases in a construction contract context.
The court established that the starting point for limitation under the Limitation Act depends on when the right to sue accrues, not merely on the date of breach or completion of work.
The court emphasized that the proper jurisdiction for a suit arising from a contract is where the contract was executed and the work performed, highlighting the fallacy in dismissing the suit without....
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.