[CASE NUMBER] ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1545 of 2004 [On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 06/11/2015 in [CASE NUMBER] ] [ENTITY] Appellant(s) Versus [ENTITY] & ASSOCIATES Defendant(s) Appearance: MR CHINTAN DAVE, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 THAKKAR AND PAHWA, ADVOCATES, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 22/01/2016 ORAL ORDER
1. The respondent has filed this note for speaking to minutes in respect of judgment and order dated 6.11.2015 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.1545 of 2004. As per the learned advocate Mr.[ENTITY] appearing for the respondent, during the course of hearing of appeal before this Court, it is submitted that the Court would consider to issue appropriate direction for return of the documents of bank guarantee furnished by the respondent to the department or to the Court. However, in the judgment and order, [ACT] Page 1 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 1 of 25 the aforesaid aspect has not been recorded through oversight and therefore this Court may direct the appellant herein to return the bank guarantees to the present respondent.
2. Learned advocate Mr.[ENTITY] thereafter has produced on record the details with regard to the bank guarantees furnished by the respondent. The said details are given on 8.1.2016 with copy of the bank guarantees and the order passed by this Court. The said documents are taken on record.
3. Learned AGP Mr.[ENTITY] on last occasion requested for time for taking instruction. Today, he has requested that the state is desirous to prefer SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order passed by this Court. However, till today, sanction from the legal department is not received. Though sufficient time is given, the State has not preferred appeal and therefore when the order passed by the City Civil Court in [CASE NUMBER] is in favour of the respondent herein and when this Court has dismissed the appeal of 2004 in November, 2015, it is proper at this stage to give direction to the appellant herein to return back the guarantees furnished by the present respondent from time to time.
[ACT] Page 2 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 2 of 25
4. In view of the aforesaid, the appellants herein are directed to return the Guarantee No.84/2 for an amount of Rs.1,33,000/-, bank guarantee no.83/60 for an amount of Rs.23,325/- issued by the State Bank of India, Makarpura Branch, Vadodara be returned to the respondent. City Civil Court, Ahmedabad is also directed to return the bank guarantee no.5/95 for an amount of Rs.12,60,144/- to the present respondent.
5. With this observation and clarification, this note for speaking to minutes is disposed off.
([ENTITY], J.) Srilatha [ACT] Page 3 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 3 of 25 [CASE NUMBER]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1545 of 2004 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the [ACT] or any order made thereunder ?
[ENTITY] Appellant(s) Versus [ENTITY] & ASSOCIATES Defendant(s) Appearance:
MR [ENTITY], ADVOCATE FOR THAKKAR AND PAHWA, ADVOCATES, CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] Date : 06/11/2015 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant - State has preferred this appeal under [SECTION] of the [ACT] against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2004 passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') in [CASE NUMBER], [ACT] Page 4 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016
4 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] whereby the Trial Court has partly allowed the suit filed by the original plaintiff - respondent herein and directed the original defendant - appellant herein to pay an amount of Rs.5,02,146.50 along with interest @ 18% from the date of suit till realization and also rejected the counter claim of the appellant.
2. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mrs. [ENTITY] for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. [ENTITY] for the respondent.
3. Learned AGP Mrs. [ENTITY] submitted that the Executive Engineer, Ahmedabad Irrigation Division, Ahmedabad invited tenders for the work of providing lining on branch No.1 Ch.1554 to 7675 meters of Moti Fatehwadi Canal. Respondent herein - original plaintiff filled in the tender form and its tender was accepted being the lowest one, consequently, an agreement has been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. Work order was also issued on 10.01.1978 and as per the agreement the work was to be completed within 18 months i.e. on or before 09.07.1979. Learned AGP Mrs. [ENTITY], thus, contended that the time was the essence of the contract, which the Trial Court has failed to appreciate. She further submitted that the impugned judgment and order is contrary to evidence on record and same is contrary to well established principle of law.
3.1. Mrs. [ENTITY] further submitted that the [ACT] Page 5 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 5 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] respondent actually started the work on
01.02.1979 and not completed the work within the stipulated time limit. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to recover compensation @ Rs. 100/- per day, as per Clause 2 of the Contract entered into between the parties. It is submitted that order to that effect of levying compensation @ Rs.lOO/- per day was passed on 22/2/1979 by the Superintending Engineer and therefore the decision was taken in the year 1979 to levy compensation as per Clause No.2 of the Contract, whereas the suit was preferred in the year 1982. Mrs. [ENTITY], therefore, contended that the learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration the aspect of delay in preferring the suit.
3.2. Mrs. [ENTITY] would further submit that the Trial Court has materially erred in not taking into consideration the submissions canvassed by and the documentary evidence relied Upon by the appellant. That the Trial Court has materially erred in not relying upon the deposition of the witnesses of the appellant. That the Trial Court has materially erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the appellant had issued various notices on 24/1/1978, 20/4/1978, 21/3/1979, 11/11/1980, 13/8/1981 and 23/10/1981. It is submitted that the said notices were issued [ACT] Page 6 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 6 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] by the Deputy Executive Engineer as well as the Executive Engineer on behalf of the appellant - original defendant and they were served upon the plaintiff, inspite of which, the plaintiff did not complete the work and therefore the plaintiff had made itself liable to pay compensation as per Clause 2 of the Contract. It is to be noted that the Trial Court has not at all discussed the above referred aspect and the Trial Court has only relied upon the oral deposition of one of the partners of plaintiff firm which was recorded at Exh.95 without even discussing the notices issued by the appellant, whereby the respondent was asked to complete the work.
3.3. Mrs. [ENTITY] contended that the learned Trial Judge has solely relied upon the oral deposition of Shri [ENTITY], a partner of the plaintiff firm, who would obviously support the case of the plaintiff. The said witness is not at all an independent witness. It is submitted that in absence of any independent witness, the Trial Court ought to have relied upon the documentary evidence and by not undertaking the said exercise, the Trial Court has acted against the settled principles of law. It is submitted that at para No.9 of the judgment, the Trial Court has observed that " there is no question of cross-examination of [ACT] Page 7 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 7 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] plaintiff " It is submitted that the said aspect clearly goes to show that the Trial Court has blindly believed the version of the witnesses of the plaintiff without compelling them for cross-examination.
3.4. Mrs.[ENTITY], learned AGP contended that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that since the respondent had abandoned the work, the appellant had to engage another agency for completion of the work abandoned by the respondent. It is submitted that the appellant had engaged one Turakhiya Mineral Supply Company and the said agency had completed the work which the respondent did not complete and therefore the respondent was liable to pay the amount of expenditure incurred which was sought by the appellant by way of counter claim. The Trial Court has materially erred in ignoring the submissions and averments made by the appellant in the written statement, whereby the appellant had categorically denied the claim of the respondent and on the contrary had placed the actual scenario whereby it was absolutely made clear that the respondent had not worked inspite of several notices being issued to the respondent and therefore the respondent was liable to pay the compensation as aforesaid.
[ACT] Page 8 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 8 of 25 [CASE NUMBER]
3.5. Mrs. [ENTITY] further submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the respondent could not complete the work, because (l) water was flowing in the canal, (2) shortage of coal, (3) shortage of Cement, (4) shortage of diesel and (5) possession of canal was not handed over in time. The learned Trial Court has absolutely ignored the submissions made by the defendant in all these aspects. As regards the first ground for not completing the work is concerned, the same is absolutely misconceived and at Para No.10 of the written statement the appellant - defendant had clearly stated that, as per Para No.42 of condition, the work shall be remained close during the period from 15th June to 15th November due to Kharif Season and therefore, it was absolutely clear in the contract that the above referred period being Kharif season, the water would be flowing in the canal and the respondent
- plaintiff would not be able to carry out any work and that the work would be closed during the said period. It is submitted that, therefore, when both the sides have signed the contract containing the above referred conditions, the respondent was aware that water would be flowing in the canal and it is also made clear in the said conditions that, "the reason for canal not being dry shall not be put forth for extension of [ACT] Page 9 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 9 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] time limit." Therefore, the reason for flowing of water could not have been accepted by the learned Trial Judge in contradiction to the condition stipulated in the contract signed by both the parties. The second ground for not completing the work was that there was shortage of coal. It is submitted that the said ground is also misconceived in view of the fact that the State Government was required to supply only the materials which are mentioned at Schedule - A along with the contract viz. Cement and Polyethylene film 100 micron (400 gauges). Therefore, the appellant was not required to supply another material and shortage of coal cannot be a ground for not completing the work, since it was the duty of the respondent to procure coal from its source and the appellant cannot be blamed for shortage of coal in the market, if at all there was such kind of shortage. Mrs. [ENTITY] submitted that coal was required for manufacturing the bricks, as bricks were required for brick lining. It is contended that during the progress of work, the respondent requested the Executive Engineer that for remaining work it may be permitted to switch over from brick lining to cement concrete lining at the tender rates only. It is further contended that the appellant accepted the request of the respondent and permitted the respondent to switch [ACT] Page 10 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 10 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] over from brick lining work to cement concrete lining work. But even thereafter also the respondent failed and neglected to perform the work of cement concrete lining and committed breach of contract. The appellant gave enough time to respondent and had written several letters and requested to complete the work but still respondent neglected to perform the same and thereby respondent committed breach of contract. Therefore, the ground given of shortage of coal is also misconceived. Even if it is assumed that there was shortage the respondent was not required to procure coal, since the appellant had agreed to the request of the respondent to do the work of cement concrete lining and therefore, the Trial Court has materially erred in accepting the said ground of the respondent.
3.6. Mrs. [ENTITY] also submitted that the next ground raised on behalf of the respondent was that there was constant shortage of cement. She would contend that the said ground is also not true in view of the fact that the appellant was supplying the cement regularly and no complaint was made by the respondent regarding shortage of cement. She further contended that even there is no reference of any such letter by the Trial Court whereby the respondent has ever made any [ACT] Page 11 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 11 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] complaint to the appellant - authority that due to shortage of cement the respondent was not able to complete the work in time. Mrs. [ENTITY], learned AGP submitted that at the relevant time there was shortage of cement and in some correspondence between the parties the officers have stated that there is shortage of cement but at no stage the contractual obligations were allowed to remain unfulfilled and supply of cement was regular and the work of the respondent was not at all affected for want of cement. Mrs. [ENTITY], therefore, contended that the learned Trial Judge has materially erred in relying on such kind of correspondence whereby it is stated that there is shortage of cement. However, the letter does not say that because of the shortage of cement the work is suffered.
3.7. The next ground shown by the respondent is that there was constant shortage of diesel. As regards the said ground is concerned, it is submitted that just like coal, diesel was also not required to be supplied by the appellant and it was the duty of the respondent to procure diesel from the market and therefore, shortage of diesel, if any, cannot be a ground for not completing the work. Therefore, the said reason is also misconceived and therefore the Trial Court has erred in believing the same reason [ACT] Page 12 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 12 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] without looking into the contract.
3.8. The next ground raised by the respondent is that the possession of the canal was not handed over in time. Mrs. [ENTITY] submitted that it is not true that the possession was not handed over in time. It is submitted that work order was issued on 3/1/1978 and the respondent had got good opportunity to start the work. But it did not start the work and only on 1/2/1979, i.e. after completion of the first Kharif season, the plaintiff started the work without their being any reason for not starting the work before the first season. It is submitted that after completion of the second Kharif season, the respondent did not start the work at all and had abandoned the work. Therefore, the respondent itself has not started the work in time and appellant had not committed any breach, as has been alleged in the plaint which has been erroneously accepted by the learned Trial Judge. It is submitted that as stated earlier, vide Clause No.42 of General Conditions of the contract, during the Kharif Season, the work would be closed and the wetness of the canal cannot be a ground for not completing the work in time. Therefore, the said ground is misconceived and the Trial Court ought not to have believed the same.
[ACT] Page 13 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 13 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] 3.9.Mrs. [ENTITY], learned AGP further submitted that the Trial Court had not taken into
consideration the fact that as per Clause No.12 of the General Conditions of the Contract, the respondent was required to submit the progress schedule every month. However, the said schedule was not supplied by the respondent and therefore, respondent had committed the breach of contract, which is not at all taken into consideration by the Trial Court. Mrs. [ENTITY] further submitted that the Trial Court has materially erred in granting the amounts which are claimed under different heads by the respondent. That the suit was time barred. Mrs. [ENTITY], learned AGP, therefore urged that the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court be quashed and set aside.
3.10. Mrs. [ENTITY], learned AGP has placed reliance upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(1) [PRECEDENT].
(2) [PRECEDENT].
(3) [PRECEDENT].
[ACT] Page 14 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 14 of 25 [CASE NUMBER]
4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. [ENTITY] submitted that the Trial Court has not committed any error while partly allowing the suit. Mr. [ENTITY] submitted that the contract had created certain mutual bilateral reciprocal obligations on both the sides and it was required to be performed by the appellant. It is true that the period of completion of work was 18 months but on account of certain compelling circumstances such as delay in handing over the site by the appellant to the respondent, flowing of water in canal, shortage of coal, shortage of diesel, etc. the work was delayed. That there was total fault on the part of the appellant and if there was no fault on the part of the appellant the respondent was ready and willing to complete the work in time. Thus, the respondent - plaintiff has filed the suit for breach of contract on the part of the appellant and claimed the amounts of Rs.5,27,146.50 under various heads.
4.1. Mr. [ENTITY] further submitted that because of non-compliance of terms of agreement on the part of the appellant the work could not be done in time. The officers of the appellant were not co- operative and the required materials were not supplied in time. The site was not made available in time. Learned advocate Mr. [ENTITY] has drawn the attention of this Court to the observations made by the Trial Court and submitted that the Trial [ACT] Page 15 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 15 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] Court has clearly observed that in present case the contractor i.e. plaintiff - respondent herein was required to carry out work on existing canal and as per schedule B of agreement Exh.143 wherein it is clearly stated that plaintiff - respondent was required to carry out item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 prior to the work of lining and at the same time the site was to be handed over first by the State i.e. defendant - appellant herein. The canal in question was not brick lined and the shape of the canal was disturbed due to flowing of the water and it was absolutely necessary on the part of the State i.e. defendant to handover site on the date on which the work order was issued. Mr. [ENTITY] submitted that it is obligatory on the part of the appellant to handover the possession of the site to the respondent in time. However, the possession of the site was not handed over in time.
4.2. Mr. [ENTITY] further submitted that the time was the essence of the contract provided all other reciprocal obligations were fulfilled by the appellant. Here, in this case, on one hand the appellant raised a contention that the time was the essence of the contract and on the other hand it did not fulfill its reciprocal obligations, which are essentially for fulfilling the terms of the contract. Learned advocate Mr. [ENTITY] has submitted that as per clause II and clause VI of [ACT] Page 16 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 16 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] agreement Exh.143, the extension of time was permissible and therefore when such two clauses have been inserted in the contract itself then it can safely be said that the time was never the essence of the contract. Mr. [ENTITY] has further submitted that when it is clearly provided that time is the essence of the contract it has to be read along with other provisions of the contract. Here, in this case, the appellant itself has extended the time and when the first obligation was not discharged by the appellant of handing over of the site, the contention that the time was the essence of the contract is to be ignored and rightly ignored by the Trial Court.
4.3. Mr. [ENTITY] has submitted that the appellant had committed breach of contract and therefore under compelling circumstances, the respondent has to terminate the contract. In support of this submission, Mr. [ENTITY] relied on the correspondence made by the respondent to the appellant and made a reference of a letter dated 10.01.1978, whereby the respondent has informed the appellant that site has not been handed over. However, no reply has been given. Mr. [ENTITY] submitted that it is the first breach committed by the appellant. Instead of handing over the site on 09.01.1978 the appellant had handed over the site on 17.03.1978 i.e. after a period of 67 [ACT] Page 17 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 17 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] days and therefore firstly the breach of contract was made by the appellant and not by the respondent. It is not in dispute that the possession of the site was handed over late by the appellant. Mr. [ENTITY] further submitted that as many as three witnesses have been examined by the appellant but none of them have any personal knowledge regarding handing over the possession of the site to the respondent and therefore the learned Trial Court has rightly relied on the correspondence made between the parties.
4.4. Mr. [ENTITY] further submitted that as per [SECTION] agreement, the appellant was to provide cement to the respondent and then only the work can commence. However, from the documents produced on record, it is crystal clear that cement was not available in market and there was shortage of cement in market. Mr. [ENTITY] has drawn the attention of this Court to a letter Exh.214 wherein the Executive Engineer has admitted that there was shortage of cement all over the State. Mr. [ENTITY] further submitted that the diesel, which was also to be provided by the appellant, was also not available in market. It is admitted that both these items were not provided in time. When there is a question of reciprocal obligation under the provisions of [SECTION] of the [ACT], it is clear that parties have to fulfill their [ACT] Page 18 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 18 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] obligations step by step. It was the first and foremost obligation on the part of the appellant to handover complete dry site, which, admittedly, has been handed over after 67 days and therefore the respondent could not commence the work in time. Mr. [ENTITY], therefore, submitted that it was for all these reasons that the work was not in progress up to mark or as per the terms of the contract. Thus, it is an admitted position that the appellant had not fulfilled its reciprocal obligations at the initial phase, consequent upon which the obligations on the part of the respondent would commence on second phase.
4.5. Learned advocate Mr. [ENTITY] has also drawn the attention of this Court to a letter dated 03.06.1980, Exh.173 and submitted that perusal of the said letter makes it clear that the said letter was written by the appellant, inter alia, stating that the appellant - department was not in a position to supply the coal on account of control by the Government and there was shortage of cement also. Mr. [ENTITY], therefore, submitted that the appellant is estopped from contending that the time was the essence of the contract when the department itself had not fulfilled its initial obligation of contract and therefore the appellant is estopped from contending that the respondent has abandoned the work. Mr. [ENTITY], therefore, submitted that the present appeal be [ACT] Page 19 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 19 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] dismissed.
4.6. Learned advocate Mr. [ENTITY] appearing for the respondent has placed reliance upon the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by this Court in [CASE NUMBER], judgment and order dated 07.09.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in [CASE NUMBER] as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Chief Secretary, State of Gujarat v. M/s. [ENTITY] & Associates, reported in 2003 (3) GLH 613.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court including the material produced on record, and R & P of the case.
6. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ahmedabad, invited tender for the work of providing lining on branch No.1 Ch. 1554 to 7675 meters of Moti Fatehwadi Canal. The respondent was awarded the said work. The said work was to be completed within 18 months i.e. on or before 09.07.1979. The entire case of the appellant was based on the contention that the time was the essence of the contract. At the same time, it is required to be noted that the contract had created certain implied mutual bilateral [ACT] Page 20 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 20 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] reciprocal obligations on both sides and they were required to be performed by both the parties including the appellant. It is well settled that when the contract created certain implied obligations on both sides, the performance of the contractual obligations on the part of the second party would commence provided the performance of contractual obligations on the part of first party. Here, in this case, so far as the contractual obligations are concerned, the first party is the appellant and the second party is the respondent. It appears that the work of the respondent would commence only on appellant handing over the workable dry site to the respondent. This is the first obligation on the part of the appellant. However, as observed by the Trial Court, the appellant had handed over the site late by 67 days in first season and that too not in workable condition and in second season also the same thing has been repeated. Thus, the first contention raised by the learned AGP for the appellant that the time was the essence of the contract is required to be discarded in view of the fact that the appellant itself had not performed its part of contractual obligation of handing over clear site to the respondent in time. Had it been a case of the appellant that the site was given in time but the respondent had not commenced the work and not [ACT] Page 21 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 21 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] completed it in time then the matter would stand on different footing and on different consideration. However, the learned AGP has failed to demonstrate that the site was given in time. Moreover, the department itself had extended the time limit for completing the work. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly observed that though the agreement provides that the work was to be completed within 18 months, time was never the essence of the contract. If the time was the essence of the contract then the department ought not to have extended the time limit for completing the work.
7. Further, it is the case of the appellant that the respondent had abandoned the work and therefore the appellant had to complete the remaining work from another contractor which had caused loss to the appellant, whereas, it is the case of the respondent that the appellant had committed breach of the contract and therefore under certain compelling circumstances the respondent has to terminate the contract, which had caused loss to the respondent.
8. It also appears from the record that apart from handing over the site in time, the appellant had failed to supply certain materials, which are required to be supplied by the appellant such as [ACT] Page 22 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 22 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] cement, coal, diesel, etc. and therefore also the work could not be completed in time. Hence, the respondent cannot be blamed for not completing the work in time. When this Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant has committed breach of the contract, there is no need to deal with the other contentions raised by the learned AGP for the appellant in detail.
9. The Trial Court has after relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered that it would be justified to award interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit till realization as the transaction is commercial in nature. Thus, no illegality is committed by the Trial Court while awarding the interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decisions referred to and relied upon by learned AGP Mrs. [ENTITY] are not applicable to the facts of present case and therefore there is no need to discuss the said decisions in detailed.
11. Therefore, when detailed reasonings have been given by the Trial Court after examining entire evidence on record and plaintiff has proved his [ACT] Page 23 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 23 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] case satisfactorily before the Trial Court and also similar case has been examined by Division Bench of this Court which has been relied upon by learned advocate Mr. [ENTITY] in the case of M/s. [ENTITY] & Associates (supra), the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The Trial Court has rightly come to conclusion as regards various claims made by plaintiff and plaintiff has not committed any breach of terms and conditions of contract. The Trial Court has considered [SECTION] of the [ACT], which clearly states that compensation for any loss or damage caused by breach of contract, when the contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result form the breach of it. The Trial Court has also rightly awarded interest upon damages. Therefore, the contentions raised by learned AGP Mrs. [ENTITY] cannot be accepted when Trial Court has given detailed reasons in support of its conclusion and finding cannot consider to be baseless or perverse. On the contrary, entire finding given by trial court is based on legal evidence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Trial Court [ACT] Page 24 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 24 of 25 [CASE NUMBER] has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court. On the contrary, this being a reasonable and just decision given by trial Court which cannot be considered to be unreasonable. Moreover, after considering the detailed reasons given by Trial Court, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court.
12. Therefore, there is no substance in present first appeal. Accordingly, present first appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated.
Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court, forthwith.
([ENTITY], J.) Jani [ACT] Page 25 of 25 Created On Sat Jan 23 02:50:39 IST 2016 25 of 25