2025:CGHC:14556-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 594 of 2018

1 - Senior Regional Manager Food Corporation of India, 2 - Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, 3 - Food Corporation of India, A Statutory Corporation, All at Branch Office Situated At Mova, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

... Appellants versus

1 - Gopal Chandra Agrawal S/o Shri Sadhu Lal Agrawal, Aged About 58 Years R/o. Near Krishi Upaz Mandi, Newra, P.S. Tilda, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Appellants : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Singhal along with Mr. Ayush Mahishwar, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board Per Rajani Dubey, J.

26.03.2025

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.08.2018 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No. 15B/2017 whereby the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. The parties shall be referred herein as per their description before the trial Court.

2. As per plaint, it has been pleaded by the plaintiff that he was working as contractor with the Defendant No. 3- corporation. Works were awarded from time to time and he completed the same to the satisfaction of the defendant-corporation. After completion of the work assigned from time to time, he submitted the bills, which were paid by the defendant No. 3. In terms of the tenders awarded from the year 2007 till 2011, plaintiff had deposited amounts towards security in terms of the terms and conditions of the concerned tender. Amount of Rs. 18,60,000/- of security deposit was made from time-to-time with the defendant No. 3. Plaintiff has completed the work as per tender awarded to him. Upon completion, plaintiff asked for refund of the said security deposits from the defendants, however, upon failure to receive the said amount, demand notice through advocate was sent, which could not yield any result. Hence, the present suit.

3. In their written statement, defendants have pleaded and argued that the defendant-corporation, inadvertently, had paid excess amount to the plaintiff, while making bill to bill payment. Therefore, the amount paid in excess were adjusted from the security deposit. By way of clarification, it is submitted that the nature of work performed by the plaintiff was in accordance with Clause 19(i) a,b,c of the Model Tender Form (in short 'MTF') and he was entitled for payment in accordance with the rates prescribed under the said clause. However, the plaintiff after obtaining payment once, submitted bills for differential in terms of clause 19(ii) a, b, c of the MTF, which were paid by the defendants.

There was difference of rates amongst the aforesaid two clauses. Accordingly, defendant No. 1 asked for refund of excess payment of Rs.13,98,242/- in terms of notice dated 20.11.2013. Upon failure to pay the said amount by the plaintiff, defendant adjusted the said amount from the security deposit of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that for the period between 07.11.2007 and 06.05.2010, work of loading was done by the plaintiff, when at the destined station 168 bags were found to be short. Therefore, as per clause XII of the MTF, plaintiff was liable to indemnify the defendants for the losses caused, which were assessed to the tune of Rs. 2,82,690/-. Stating further, it is pleaded and argued that the audit team of the defendant corporation, while auditing found certain irregularities and accordingly raised objections pertaining to the work done by the plaintiff during different tender periods. As per objections raised, a total loss of Rs. 29,36,000/- was assessed, which is pending for disposal. It was vehemently argued that the present suit instituted by the plaintiff is beyond period of limitation, in as much as transactions pertains to the years 2007 to 2011 and suit has been filed in the year 2017. Thus, has pra