FA/918/1982 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 918 of 1982 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI : Sd/- ======================================================= 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 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ======================================================= AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION - Appellant(s) Versus CASEIN CORPORATION OF INDIA - Defendant(s) ======================================================= Appearance : MR PRASHANT G DESAI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR CHANDRAKANT SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1, MR SANDIP C SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1, ======================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 11/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the FA/918/1982 2/3 JUDGMENT appellant-original plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1981 passed by the Learned Judge, City Civil Court, Court No.15, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No.4164/1978. 2. The appellant-original plaintiff has filed the aforesaid suit, wherein it has been prayed for an amount of Rs.80,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the suit and the costs of the suit on the allegation that the defendant failed to lift approximately 5 metric tonnes of casein and thereby committed breach of the contract resulting into damage to the plaintiff- corporation. 3. After having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the Learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the original plaintiff. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and also considered the documents forming part of the appeal. 5. The Learned Trial Court has considered the Issues framed by him, more particularly, Issue Nos.8 and 9 and also made detailed discussion in paragraph nos.12, 13, 14 and 15 and in view of the terms of FA/918/1982 3/3 JUDGMENT the tender reproduced in the impugned judgment. The Court has also discussed Exh.25 and 26 in the impugned judgment and has come to a conclusion that the there was not contract bearing the common seal of the plaintiff-corporation entered into between the parties to the suit as per B.P.M.C. Act, therefore, the suit contract is not legally enforceable. 6. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, has dismissed the suit on merits. I am in complete agreement with the reasons given by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to establish any error committed by the trial Court. 7. In the result, the appeal fails. It is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Sd/- (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) /patil