Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Abhinand Kumar Shavili, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy
M.S. Constructions – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to govt. Randb department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contract execution issues (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. defense arguments on contract risks (Para 6 , 8) |
| 3. court’s findings on delays (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. conclusion and dismissal of appeals (Para 12 , 14) |
JUDGMENT:
Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 06.10.2004 in O.S.No.501 of 2001 rendered by the learned XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the plaintiff filed C.C.C.A.No.68 of 2005 and defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed C.C.C.A.No.10 of 2006.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial Court.
4. The plaintiff-M/s. M.S. Constructions, a registered civil construction firm filed a Suit against the Roads & Buildings Department, the then Government of Andhra Pradesh (presently the State of Telangana) and its officials (defendants) for declaration that the termination of the contract by defendant No.4 (Executive Engineer) under Clause 60(a) of the contract was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and for recovery of Rs.64,43,227/- with interest @ 24% per annum and other reliefs. The trial Court decreed the Suit of the plaintiff f
The contractor's claims of delays and damages were not supported by evidence that absolved the Department of its contractual obligations.
The contractor was found to have breached the contract, while the Department failed to substantiate its claim for damages due to lack of evidence.
The contractor was found to have breached the contract, and the Department's claim for damages was denied due to insufficient evidence.
The contractor was found to have breached the contract due to non-performance, while the Department failed to substantiate its claims for damages.
The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit for damages due to insufficient evidence and the contractor's failure to complete the work as per the contract.
The court emphasized that public authority's arbitrary termination of a contract without following due procedures violates principles of fairness and justness, meriting judicial intervention.
The court reinforced that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope for judicial interference with arbitral awards is limited, particularly regarding factual findings.
Contractors cannot claim damages for delays caused by their own inaction or failure to meet contractual obligations, even if land acquisition delays occur.
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
