Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR versus M/S JULKA AND COMPANY

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Food Corporation of India & Anr v. M/s Julka and Company - RSA-4271-1999 [2006] RD-P&H 912 (17 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.M. No. 10641-C of 2005 and

R.S.A. No. 4271 of 1999 (O&M)

Date of Decision: February 9, 2006

Food Corporation of India

.....Appellant

Vs.

M/s Julka and Company

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

For the reasons given in the application the order dated March 10, 2003 is recalled. The main appeal is restored to his original number.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits of the controversy also.

The plaintiff Food Corporation of India has approached through the present Regular Second Appeal. A suit for recovery of Rs.1,57,884.50/- was filed by the plaintiff Corporation claiming that tender submitted by the defendant had been accepted. Even after that the defendant failed to deposit any earnest money, therefore, the contract was cancelled and the work was got done at the risk and cost of the defendant through some other contractor. On that account, it was R.S.A. No. 4271 of 1999 (O&M) [2]

claimed that the plaintiff Corporation had suffered a loss and it was entitled to recover such loss from the defendant.

The defendant contested the suit. He took various technical pleas and also raised question that since he had already communicated to the Corporation that he was not interested in the work, therefore, the plaintiff Corporation had no right to get the work done at the risk and cost of the defendant from some other contractor.

The learned trial Court held that the plaintiff Corporation had got the work done at the risk and cost of the defendant, and therefore, was entitled to recover the loss suffered by it. However, the claim made by the Corporation for a quantified amount, was rejected and it was held that Corporation would be entitled to recover the difference of 42% of SOR, on which rate the defendant had to perform the contract with 44% of SOR on which the work was got subsequently done by the Corporation, as per the accounts statement Ex.P.10.

The plaintiff Corporation filed an appeal against the aforesaid decree and claimed before the learned first Appellate Court that it was entitled to the damages as claimed by it. The learned first Appellate Court reappraised the evidence and came to the similar conclusion, as had been arrived at by the learned trial Court. The appeal of the Corporation was dismissed.

It was also held by the learned first Appellate Court that no fresh tender had been invited by the Corporation, and therefore, the quantified damages, as claimed by the plaintiff could not be granted.

R.S.A. No. 4271 of 1999 (O&M) [3]

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.

Dismissed.

February 9, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.