Back
T. AMARNATH GOUD, S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Pranjit Saikia – Appellant
Versus
Food Corporation of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for contract termination and loss of profit. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. appellant's claims regarding contractual obligations. (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 3. respondent’s defence against appellant's claims. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. judgment dismissal and upholding of contract terms. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. limited relief for return of security deposit. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
T. Amarnath Goud, J. - These appeals, being RFA 17 of 2016 and RFA 22 of 2017 challenging the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2016 in T.S.130 of 2012 and Judgment and decree dated 26.04.2017 in T.S.106 of 2012 passed by the Civil Judge(Sr.Div), West Tripura, Agartala respectively, have been clubbed together for disposal by a common judgment.
2. The appellant contract-transporter in RFA 17 of 2016 having been selected under tender dated 12.08.2009[Exbt.1] floated by the Food Corporation of India (FCI for short)[respondent herein] for transporting food grains on behalf of FCI for two years, started transportation of the same after depositing 50% of the total security deposit on condition of deducting remaining 50% from the admitted bills at 5% as per the tender provision, meanwhile after repeated communications by the E
The court affirmed the legality of contract termination due to imposed load restrictions, highlighting that contractual obligations must be fulfilled to claim damages.
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.
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.
Damages for loss of expected profits can be claimed in breach of contract cases, provided the breach is established and the loss is evidenced.
Termination of transport agreements requires clear evidence of malpractices; suspicion alone is insufficient for legal actions.
The issuance of a No Demand Certificate validly discharged the contract, and subsequent demands by the Food Corporation of India were arbitrary and illegal.
The court affirmed that failure to commence loading within the stipulated time justified contract termination and forfeiture of the security deposit.
The judgment establishes that the exercise of unfettered discretion by the Authorities, without complying with the Principles of Natural Justice, renders their decision illegal and subject to judicia....
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
