APARESH KUMAR SINGH, ARINDAM LODH
Food Corporation of India – Appellant
Versus
Namita Paul – Respondent
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 Commercial Suit No.04 of 2016 by learned Judge, District Commercial Court, may be reproduced here-in-below for the sake of convenience since the facts leading to CS 08 of 2017 filed by M/S Namita Paul being the plaintiff and her defence in CS 04 of 2016 are similar and the Food Corporation of India ( for short, 'FCI') and its officials being th
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.
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.
Government Contract – A Letter of Intent (LoL) merely indicates party’s intention to enter into a contract with other party in future and is not intended to bind either party ultimately to enter into....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.