Back
2022 Supreme(HP) 802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, VIRENDER SINGH, JJ.
Powai Labs Technology Private Limited – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others – Respondents
C.W.P. No. 2081 of 2013
Decided On : 16-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shalini Thakur.
For the Respondents: Rajinder Dogra, Vinod Thakur, Bhupinder Thakur.
Point of Law: Section 70 of Act reads as where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously; and such other person enjoys benefit thereof, latter is bound to make compensation to former in respect of, or to restore, thing so done or delivered.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 299(1) - Contract Act, 1872 - Section 70 - Contract - Non Performance of Contractual Obligations - Pay Damages - Instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs - Directing respondents to pay to petitioner damages on account of non performance of contractual obligations by them under Memorandum of Agreement annexure P-3 - If one party has performed his part under it and other party has received benefit of such performance, first party is entitled to be compensated for such performance - Para 10.
Finding of the Court:
Even though a contract may be void, if one party has performed his part under it and other party has received benefit of such performance, first party is entitled to be compensated for such performance - This section, in short, provides for payment of compensation or restoration of a thing by a person who has enjoyed benefit, irrespective of validity or otherwise of contract between parties - Adverting to facts of the case, it would be noticed that instant petition and reply filed thereto is loaded with allegations and counter-allegations - Therefore, in given facts and circumstances, it would neither be prudent nor safe for this Court to grant damages which will have to be proved by petitioner by leading clear, cogent and convincing evidence before Civil Court - It needs to be clarified that merely because petitioner satisfies any of aforesaid conditions or all said conditions, it does not mean that suit that may be filed by it, has to be decreed - This would, of course, be subject to rights and contentions of respondents – In view of aforesaid discussion, contract being in contravention of Article 299 cannot be enforced by petitioner against respondents - However, petitioner, if so advised, can sue respondents for damages, but same shall be subject to all defences as are open to respondents, both legal as also factual including and not restricted to limitation, estoppel etc. etc.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:
“(1) For issuing a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents for releasing 100% payment i.e. Rs. 99,93,984/- to the petitioner as agreed in terms of MoA annexure P-3 dated 16.3.2010 within a time bound schedule along with 15% interest w.e.f. April 2010 till the date of payment.
(2) For directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner damages on account of non performance of contractual obligations by them under the Memorandum of Agreement annexure P-3 dated 16.3.2010. Respondents may also be directed to pay to the petitioner, the expenses incurred by it on account of boarding/lodging and travel. Respondents may also be directed to pay the petitioner the cost of the writ petition and other legal expenses to the petitioner.
(3) For the sustainability of the project the respondent may kindly be directed to pay for the reinstallation, extended warranty from the date of expire of Bank Guarantee, pay for any component that is damaged in transit from old campus to new campus, any component that is stolen etc. to enable the project be restarted for the benefit of the students and faculty of the State.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that a letter was received by respondent No. 3 from Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai, signed by one Professor Madhav P. Desai wherein it was informed that the Micro Processor and VLSI are the emerging areas of technology and benefits under the distance education programme of IIT Mumbai could be achieved by setting up of VLSI Lab for which the representatives of the petitioner-company would liaison with IIT Mumbai Professors, who shall, in turn conduct courses for the students of remote locations. The total cost was stated to be Rs. 96,09,600/- and it was desired to contact the petitioner an IIT Mumbai incubated entity at their phone number and e-mail.
3. Further communication was received from the petitioner on the pads depicting IIT Mumbai and Powai Labs i.e. petitioner, wherein it was indicated that IIT Professors are conducting the Microelectronic Course and the petitioner lab shall support the education delivery. Another communication, a certificate from IIT Mumbai signed by M. Shajai Baghini, Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering, IIT, Mumbai, was received, wherein it was indicated that the representative from petitioner lab would be visiting under his guidance and his support visit to remote location will reduce the gap between the students and faculty. Yet, another certificate purportedly signed by Professor Madhav P. Desai was issued wherein the petitioner had been shown to be the coordinator of the IIT Mumbai distance education programme. Not only this, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 22.12.2009 on the pad depicting the IIT logo contending to deliver IIT Course to the Technical Education Institutes of the State. The petitioner made an oral presentation on 10.02.2010 wherein the scope and benefits of the lab were discussed and feedback forms from the faculty were taken.
4. Even though, the petitioner was a private limited company, but up-till signing of the MOU, it conducted itself and purported to act on behalf of the IIT Mumbai distance education programme. According to the respondents, on account of this misrepresentation, they were led to believe that Powai Lab is an entity of IIT Mumbai and an enterprise venture for distance education programme. The communication made by the petitioner showing IIT Mumbai logo and Powai Lab specifically indicated the address as R&D Centre Registered Office 4th Floor, IIT, Bombay and its email address powailabs@it,iitb.ac.in wherein IIT Mumbai connotes Indian Institute of Engineering and Technology Bombay which again according to the respondents demonstrates an attempt on the part of the petitioner to believe that it was an enterprise of IIT Mumbai and its integral part. A MOU was drawn
