Back
TRIPURA HIGH COURT
N/A, N/A
The Food Corporation of India – Appellant
Versus
M/S Namita Paul – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contract details and obligations (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. appeals and trial court procedures (Para 2 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments regarding liability and contractual obligations (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. evidence and burden of proof in contract disputes (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. final verdict and implications of the ruling (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 30) |
1. We have combined both the appeals as the disputes emerge from the same contract being CONT.09 / NEFR / TC / TVZ - CDR / 09 dated 29.04.2009 which was formalised for transporting foodgrains etc. from railway sidings / FSD Churaibari to FSD Chandrapur for a period of two years from the date of acceptance of the tender.
2. Let us first deal with RFA 16 of 2019 (The Food Corporation of India and Another v. M/S Namita Paul) as the decision of this appeal will determine the fate of the other appeal being RFA No.17 of 2019 (The Food Corporation of India and Another v. M/s Namita Paul).
3. The appellants in RFA No.16 of 2019, Food Corporation of India had accepted the rate quoted by the respondent and communicated their acceptance by FAX dated 20.04.2009 and the letter dated 29.04.2009. While accepting the tender it was comm
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
