SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(MP) 574

2005(3) JLJ 414
Subhash Samvatsar, J.
Nagarpalika, Morena and another v. Shivshankar Gupta
First Appeal No. 93 of 1999 : against the judgment and decree
passed by I Additional District Judge, Morena,
in Civil Suit No. 26-B of 1996;
Decided on 5.5.2005.

Advocates:
K.N. Gupta with Praveen Newaskar for appellants;
P.C. Chandil for respondent.

Headnote:(1) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.)--S. 110--Contract Act, 1872--Ss. 65 and 70 -- work order of Municipal Council admittedly carried out--Municipal Council also taking benefit under work order--cannot deny payment on the basis of S.110 of the Municipalities Act--provisions of Ss. 65 and 70 of Contract Act are applicable.

       Tender notice for supply of bamboos and wooden poles was issued for which Yadav Tent House has also submitted his tender which was accepted. However, Yadav Tent House, at the eleventh hour, refused to perform his part of contract and therefore, the present plaintiff agreed to supply the said materials on the same rates on which the tender of Yadav Tent House was accepted. On the assurance given by the officers of the Municipality, the plaintiff carried out the said work and demanded an amount of Rs.24,971.00 for the work order carried out by him in pursuance to the work order issued to Yadav Tent House and Rs. 1,600.00 towards refund of security amount was also claimed. [Para 3

       The contention raised by Shri K.N. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Municipality, is that in absence of any written contract,‘ this amount could not be awarded to the plaintiff. For this purpose, he relied upon the provisions of section 110 of the M.P. Municipalities Act and a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shajuddin v. Nagar Palika Parishad, Sheopurkalan [1985 JLJ 486]. [Para 6

       In response to this argument, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the provisions of sections 65 and 70 of the Contract Act. According to the plaintiff, even assuming that the contract in question is void, the defendant Municipality has received this advantage under the said agreement or contract hence, now it is bound to compensate it. [Para 7

       Held : In the present case, the plaintiff has supplied the materials which was enjoyed by the defendant. The defendant had taken benefit of the said materials knowingly that they will have to pay the amount as agreed between the Municipality and Yadav Tent House and, therefore, in view of sections 65 and 70 of the Contract Act, the Municipality is liable to pay the said amount. 1985 JLJ 486 distinguished. . [Para 8

       (2) Municipalities Act, 1961 (M.P.)--S. 319--notice of suit--contract to supply material not under any provision of the Act--notice not necessary.

       Section 319 of the Act bars a suit against the Council and its officers or any person for anything done or purported to have been done under the provisions of the Act. In the present case, the officers or the Council while asking the plaintiff to supply the materials, was not doing anything under the provisions of the Municipalities Act but have simply entered into a contract to supply materials for the purpose of ‘Mela Pashupatinath Mahadev, Morena‘ and therefore, they were not acting or purported to have been acting under the provisions of the Act and in such circumstances section 319 of the Act will not be attracted. [Para 10

       (3) Civil P.C., 1908--O.1 Rr. 9 & 10 and S. 99-suit against Municipal Council-- filed in the name of its officers--application for correction of cause title also filed-- cannot be dismissed for non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties. (2003) 3 SCC 472 distinguished. AIR 1964 SC 818 followed. [Para 11

       (4) Civil P.C., 1908--S. 34-interest-d`rate of interest paid by the banks should be considered--banks paying 6% interest p.a. on fixed deposits--award of 15% p.a. reduced to 6% p.a. [Para 13

       ¼1½ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 110&lafonk vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 65 rFkk 70&uxjikfydk ifj"kn ds dk;kZns‘k ij LohÑr :i ls dk;Z fd;k x;k&uxjikfyd ifj"kn us dk;fn‘k ds v/khu Qk;nk Hkh çkIr fd;k&uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 110 ds vk/kkj ij lank; djus ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk&lafonk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 65 rFkk 70 ds mica/k ykxw gksrs gSaA

       ck¡lksa vkSj ydM+h ds [kaHkksa ds çnk; ds fy, fufonk lwpuk tkjh dh xbZ Fkh ftlds fy, ;kno VsaV gkml us Hkh viuh fufonk is‘k dh Fkh tks Lohdkj dj yh xbZA rFkkfi] vafre le; ij ;kno VsaV gkml us lafonk ds vius Hkkx dk ikyu djus ls badkj dj fn;k] vr% çLrqr oknh mDr lkexzh mUgha njksa ij çnk; djus ds fy, lger gks x;k ftu njksa ij ;kno VsaV gkml dh fufonk Lohdkj dh xbZ FkhA uxjikfydk ds vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk fn, x, vk‘oklu ij oknh us mDr dk;Z iw.kZ fd;k rFkk ;kno VsaV gkml dks tkjh fd, dk;kZns‘k ds vuqlj.k esa mlds }kjk iw.kZ fd, x, dk;kZns‘k ds fy, #-24]971@& dh ek¡x dh rFkk çfrHkwfr jde ds çfrnk; ds fy, #- 1]600@& dk Hkh nkok fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 3½

       uxjikfydk dh vksj ls milatkr fo}ku T;s"B vf/koDrk Jh ds-,u- xqIrk }kjk fd;k x;k ladFku ;g gS fd fyf[kr lafonk ds vHkko esa oknh dks ;g jde vf/kfu.khZr ugha dh tk ldrhA bl ç;kstukFkZ mUgksaus e-ç- uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 110 ds mica/kksa dk vkSj bl U;k;ky; }kjk ‘kktqn~nhu fo- uxjikfydk ifj"kn] ‘;ksiqjdyk¡ ¿1985 ts ,y ts 486À ds ekeys esa ikfjr fu.kZ; dk voyac fy;kA ¼iSjk 6½

       bl rdZ ds mÙkj esa çR;FkhZx.k ds fo}ku dkmUlsy us lafonk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 65 rFkk 70 ds mica/kksa dk voyac fy;k gSA oknh ds vuqlkj] ;g /kkj.kk djus ij Hkh fd ç‘uxr uxjikfydk us mDr djkj ;k lafonk ds v/khu ;g Qk;nk çkIr fd;k gS vr% og vc mls çfrÑr djus ds fy, vkc) gSA ¼iSjk 7½

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % çLrqr ekeys esa oknh us lkexzh çnku dh gS ftldk çfroknh us miHkksx fd;k gSA çfroknh us mDr lkexzh dk Qk;nk ;g tkurs gq, fy;k Fkk fd mUgsa uxjikfydk vkSj ;kno VsaV gkml ds e/; djkj fd, x, vuqlkj jde lanÙk djuk gksxh] blfy,] lafonk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 65 vkSj 70 dh n`f"V ls uxjikfydk mDr jde lanÙk djus ds fy, nk;h gSA 1985 ts ,y ts 486 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 8½

       ¼2½ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1961 ¼e-ç-½&/kkjk 319&okn dh lwpuk&lkexzh çnk; djus dh lafonk] vf/kfu;e ds fdlh mica/k ds v/khu ugha&lwpuk vko‘;d ughaA

       vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 319 esa vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dh xbZ vFkok fd, tkus ds fy, rkRif;Zr fdlh ckr ds fy, ifj"kn vkSj mlds vf/kdkfj;ksa ;k fdlh O;fDr ds fo#) okn oftZr gSA çLrqr ekeys esa] oknh dks lkexzh çnk; djus ds fy, dgrs le; vf/kdkjhx.k vFkok ifj"kn~ uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu dk;Z ugha dj jgs Fks vfirq mUgksaus dsoy ^esyk i‘kqifrukFk egknso] eqjSuk* ds ç;kstu ds fy, lkexzh çnk; djus ds fy, lafonk dh gS vkSj blfy, og vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ugha dj jgs Fks vFkok muds }kjk ,slk dk;Z fd;k tkuk rkRif;Zr ugha Fkk] rFkk ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 319 vkÑ"V ugha gksxhA ¼iSjk 10½

       ¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &vk-1 fu-9 ,oa 10 rFkk /kkjk 99&uxjikfydk ifj"kn ds fo#) okn&mlds vf/kdkfj;ksa ds uke esa Qkby fd;k x;k&okn ‘kh"kZd esa ‘kqf) ds fy, vkosnu Hkh Qkby fd;k x;k&i{kdkjksa ds vla;kstu ;k dqla;kstu ds fy, [kkfjt ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2003½ 3 ,l lh lh 472 çHksfnrA , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 818 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 11½

       ¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 34&Ckt&cSadksa }kjk lanÙk C;kt dh nj ij fopkj fd;k tkuk pkfg,&cSadksa }kjk lkof/k fu{ksi ij 6 izfr‘kr C;kt çfro"kZ lanÙk fd;k tk jgk gS&15 izfr‘kr çfro"kZ dk vf/kfu.kZ; de dj ds 6 izfr‘kr çfro"kZ fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 13½

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the defendants challenging judgment and decree dated 9.4.1999 passed by First Additional District Judge, Morena in Civil Suit No. 26-B/96 whereby the Court below has passed a decree for recovery of Rs. 91,571.00 with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 10.8.1996 till the date of passing of the decree and 6% from 9.4.1999 till realisation of the said amount.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed the present suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 91,571.00 against the defendant which is a Municipality constituted under the provisions of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. The plaintiff carries on business of tent house in the name and style 'Gupta Tent House' as a proprietor. In the year 1994 an advertisement dated 22.10.1994 was issued calling tenders for erecting a tent and supply of chairs, tables, cushions, tage-covers etc. The plaintiff submitted his offer in pursuance of the said tender notice. His tender was accepted by letter No. 5/94 dated 20.11.1994 and a work order was placed with the plaintiff at the consideration of Rs. 65,000/-. There is no dispute that the plaintiff carried out the work order as per the tender notice.

3. Another tender notice for supply of bamboos and wooden poles was issued for which Yadav Tent House has also submitted his tender which was accepted. However, Yadav Tent House, at the eleventh hour, refused to perform his part of contract and therefore', the present plaintiff agreed to supply the said materials on the same rates on which the tender of Yadav Tent House was accepted. On the assurance given by the officers of the Municipality's, the plaintiff carried out the said work and demanded an amount of Rs. 24,971.00 for the work order carried out by him in pursuance to the work order issued to Yadav Tent House and Rs. 1,600.00 towards refund of security amount was also claimed.

4. The defendants filed their written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed as many as nine issues and decreed the plaintiff's suit with 15% interest, hence this appeal.

5. The first contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the trial Court has erred in passing a decree for Rs. 91,571.00. As regards the amount of Rs. 65,000/- claimed by the plaintiff towards the work order issued in his name is concerned, it is an admitted fact that a work order for Rs. 65,000/- was issued in favour of the plaintiff for installation of tent supply of chairs, bedsheets, table-covers etc. for Mela Pashupatinath Mahadev, Morena. From the perusal of the written statement and the statements of the witnesses it appears that there is no serious dispute about the work done by the petitioner in pursuance of the work order issued to him. The plaintiff has supplied the materials as per the work order and there is no justification on record to disallow this part of the claim of the plaintiff.

6. As regards, the claim for the amount of Rs. 24,971/- is concerned, the contention raised by Shri K.N. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Municipality, is that in absence of any written contract, this amount could not be awarded to the plaintiff. For this purpose, he relied upon the provisions of section 110 of the M.P. Municipalities Act and a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shajuddin v. Nagar Palika Parishad, Sheopurkalan [1985 JLJ 486]. Section 110 of the Act provides that all the contracts on behalf of the Municipality shall be expressed to be made by the Chief Municipal Officer in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the said section. According to this section, however contract shall be made on behalf of the Municipality by the Chief Municipal Officer and no such contract for any purpose shall be carried out without the approval or sanction of some other Municipal authority unless and until such approval or sanction is obtained. However, contract made by the Chief Mun
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top