Back
R. N. MANJULA
Ambica Gen Power, Rep. By its Proprietor Pramod Kumar Daga – Appellant
Versus
Superintendent Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(R.N. Manjula, J.)
(PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2011 made in A.S. No. 368 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2008 made in O.S. No. 5364 of 2007 on the file of the VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.)
The appellant is the plaintiff who had filed the suit for recovery of money and the trial Court has dismissed the same. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff challenging the judgment of the trial Court also dismissed by confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant / plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal.
2. The short facts leading to the case of the plaintiff as pleaded by him in the plaint is as under:
2.1 The plaintiff is the dealer of Cocktail Wires in Chennai. The defendant has placed order in P.O.No.29/0607 dated 15.06.2006 and P.O.No.31/0607 dated 15.06.2006 for the supply of TC Fuse wires. The plaintiff was ready to supply the materials and sent a communication dated 03.11.2006 requesting the defendant to amend the value of the order for
The court ruled that unilateral deductions by the defendant without proper adjudication violated principles of natural justice, leading to the plaintiff's recovery claim being upheld.
Actual damages must be proved for recovery in breach of contract. Clauses implying penalties cannot be enforced without valid demonstration of loss.
The court emphasized the importance of fulfilling payment obligations in a contract and upheld the principle that breach of payment obligations justifies refusal to make further deliveries.
A claimant cannot assert frustration of contract based on force majeure conditions if those conditions were previously contemplated and stipulated in the contract.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for written and mutually agreed amendments to a contract, and the recognition of mitigation of loss by the plaintiff.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to consider Clause 702 of the IRS conditions led to a patent illegality in the award, justifying its setting aside.
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
