Back
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Bharat Coking Coal Limited – Appellant
Versus
Rajkumar and Brothers – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. The appellant company represented through principal officers are the defendants have preferred the instant appeal against the judgment dated 27.09.2010 and decree dated 02.11.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-V, Dhanbad in Money Suit No. 27 of 1993, whereby the appellants have been directed to pay the decreed amount of Rs. 13,65,551/- with 6% pendent lite and future interest.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff was awarded coal transportation and allied job at Damoda Colliery vide Work Order No. GM/AR-I/Fin/2443/91 dated 05/11.09.1991 covering the period from 14.08.1991 to 31.03.1992 on the terms and conditions set forth therein and thereafter the plaintiff was given extension of work with effect from 01.04.1992 initially upto 30.06.1992 vide letter No. 379 dated 30.04.1992 and thereafter vide letter No. GM/AR-I/PS-F-3/1323/92 dated 30.06.1992 upto 31.08.1992. The terms of the contract besides the general terms included special terms and conditions for picking out all shale/stone, loading coal into tipping trucks by contractor’s pay-orders and transportation of coal from Albion Depot to K.G. siding, Albion depot to BJ-II and B
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 affirmed the right to forfeit a security deposit for non-completion of work as per contract terms, emphasizing the necessity of proving actual damages.
The obligation of the state to act fairly and reasonably in contractual disputes, and the importance of respecting the specific terms of a contract.
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.
Contractual obligations regarding delayed construction projects must consider the contractor's contributions to delays and enforceability of claims under economic duress.
Point of law: When the appeal is presented in terms of Section 96 CPC and when this Court is considering this appeal not only as a last Court of fact but also in terms of law, it is open for the appe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recovery of an allegedly excess amount for transportation of coal was justified as per the transportation contract agreement.
The contractor is not liable for destination shortages absent sufficient evidence, affirming the court's findings on liability for withheld amounts.
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
