Back
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, ARINDAM LODH
Food Corporation of India – Appellant
Versus
Namita Paul – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issuance of contracts and obligations under nit. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments surrounding responsibility and performance obligations. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. court observations on the legality of contract termination and conditions of refund. (Para 12 , 39) |
| 4. implied terms in commercial contracts and their enforceability. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Arindam Lodh, J. - Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both the appeals, these were heard together on consent of learned counsel for the parties and are being taken up for decision by this common judgment.
2. These appeals under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015 read with Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code,1908 have been filed challenging the common Judgment and Decree dated 06.07.2022, passed in Case No. C.S.08/2017 & C.S. 04/2016 by the learned District Commercial Court, West Tripura, Agartala whereby the Suit bearing No. CS 08 of 2017 filed by the respondent [the original plaintiff] was partly decreed and the Suit bearing No.CS 04 of 2016 filed by the appellants [the original defendants] was dismissed.
3. The facts as narrated in common judgment i.e. in Commercial Suit No. 08 of 2017 and
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 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 contractor is not liable for destination shortages absent sufficient evidence, affirming the court's findings on liability for withheld amounts.
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.
A party's entitlement to damages in breach of contract cases must correlate with actual damages suffered; security deposits can be refunded when no loss is incurred by the other party.
The court affirmed that failure to commence loading within the stipulated time justified contract termination and forfeiture of the security deposit.
Point of law: Not only is the writ jurisdiction of this Court invoked in a purely contractual matter, having no colour of public law and the writ remedy is thus not maintainable.
Actual damages must be proved for recovery in breach of contract. Clauses implying penalties cannot be enforced without valid demonstration of loss.
The court affirmed the legality of contract termination due to imposed load restrictions, highlighting that contractual obligations must be fulfilled to claim damages.
A state instrumentality cannot extend a contract unilaterally without mutual consent, and forfeiture of security deposits requires proof of loss and compliance with natural justice principles.
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
