Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 667
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
U.C. Dhyani, J.
M.N.Farooqi - Appellant
versus
State of Uttaranchal through Executive Engineer,
Establishment Division Workshop - /Respondent
Second Appeal No. 18 of 2003
Decided On : 24.05.2012
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Bindesh Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General for the respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party suffering losses due to the cancellation of a work order is entitled to compensation for the actual losses incurred.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure - Appeal against judgment and decree - Section 100 - Recovery of losses due to cancellation of work order - Summary of facts, findings, issues, ratio decidendi, and final decision
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of losses amounting to Rs. 1,57,850 due to the cancellation of a work order by the defendant. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court partly allowed the appeal, reducing the amount to Rs. 29,900. The plaintiff appealed to the second appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff suffered losses due to the cancellation of the work order by the defendant and was entitled to compensation.
Issues: The issues included whether the plaintiff suffered losses due to the cancellation of the work order, whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest, and the determination of the quantum of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff was legally entitled to the payment of losses incurred due to the cancellation of the agreement. It also determined the specific losses for which the plaintiff was entitled to compensation.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, and the defendant was directed to pay the plaintiff a total amount of Rs. 78,400 along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum pendentilite and future.
This appeal, preferred by the plaintiff/appellant, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2002 passed in Civil Appeal No. 169 of 2001, whereby learned Additional District Judge/4th F.T.C Dehradun has partly set aside and modified the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2001 passed by the then Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in Original Suit No. 427 of 1996 titled as M.N.Farooqi vs. State of U.P. whereby plaintiff’s suit was decreed against the defendants for Rs. two lacs along with the interest at the rate of 10 % per annum pendentilite and future.
2. Brief facts of the case are that original plaintiff/appellant M.N.Farooqi instituted Original Suit No. 427 of 1996 for a decree for the recovery of Rs. 2 lacs in his favour along with interest at the rate of 2% per mensem pendentilite and future against the defendant/respondent State of Uttar Pradesh. It was averred in the plaint that he was carrying on a business of contractor in the name of M/S Ajanta Arts Service as its sole proprietor at Rishikesh, District Dehradun. The Executive Engineer (Establishment) Ex. En. U.P. Government Workshop, Roorkee issued a notice dated 03.08.1994 inviting tenders for the following works :
i. Painting with coaltar apoxy paint after sand blast and primer coating shutter and its parts of radial gate in bay no. 1, 2 & 3 of Jawalapur Head Regulator site at Km. 6.04 of Upper Ganga Canal Modernization (World Bank) Project. The approximate quantity of the work was 6.50 sq. meters. In the execution of the work apoxy zinc rich primer and coaltar apoxy were to be issued (lot no. 1).
ii. Painting with coaltar apoxy paint sand blast cleaning and primer coating shutter and its parts of radial gates in bay nos. 4, 5 & 6 of Jawalapur Head Regulator site at Km. 6.04 of upper Ganga Canal Modernisation (Word Bank) Project. The estimated quantity of the work was 650 sq. meters. The paints to be used in the execution of the work apoxy zinc rich primer and coaltar apoxy (lot no. 2.).
iii. Painting with synthetic Enamel Paint after primer coating on hoist bridge and hoist assembly in 1 no, bays of Jawalapur Head Regulator and cross regulator site at 6.4 k m of upper Ganga Canal Modernization (Word Bank) Project. The estimated quantity of the work was 2150 sq. meters. The paints and the primer to be used were red oxide primer and synthetic enamel (lot no. 3).
3. The plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 16,000/- as earnest money along with tender in respect of the aforesaid three works in the form of post office Savings Bank Account duly placed in favour of the Executive Engineer (Establishment), Roorkee. The period of execution of work in respect of lot no. 1 and lot no. 2 was 15 days each and in respect of lot no. 3 was one month. The Executive Engineer accepted the rates kept by the plaintiff/appellant in respect of lot no. 1 and the acceptance was communicated through letter dated 30.09.1994. The plaintiff/appellant was required to deposit Rs. 20,000/- security money either in the form of Savings Certificate or Savings Bank Account duly pledged in favour of the Executive Engineer (Establishment). The plaintiff/appellant was further required to submit stamp papers worth Rs. 1950 for executing the work within a week. The Executive Engineer accepted the rates kept by the plaintiff /appellant in respect of lot no. 2 and communicated the acceptance through letter dated 30.09.1994. He directed the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 20,000/- as a security money either in the form of Savings Certificate from post office or Saving Banks Account duly pledged in favour of Executive Engineer for a period of six months and to submit stamp papers of the value of Rs. 1950 for executing the agreement within a week. The plaintiff/appellant on receiving the letter informed the Ex. En. vide letter dated 06.10.1994 that the post office and banks were closed for the last four days due to imposition of curfew
