LexDWARAKA DAS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A DWARAKADAS .. v. ~ STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. FEBRUARY 10, 1999 B [V.N. KHARE AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s. 152---<:01Tection of Clerical Er- ror:r-Trial Court decreeing suit for recovery of Rs. 32,000 with future inter- est-Subsequently on applicatwn by Plaintiff Trial Court co"ecting judgment c and awarding,pendente lite interest-High Court setting aside grant of pendente lite interest-Held, omission to grant pendente lite interest not accidental and could not be comcted by Trial Court. Contract Act 1872, s. 73-Compensation for Breach of Contract-Trial D Court decreeing Appellant's suit for recovery of compensation for breach of contract including damages of Rs. 20,00D-High Court in appeal by Defen- dant State disallowing claim for damages and reducing decretal amounHle/d, High Court not justified in disallowing claim of damages as expected profit out of contract illegally rescinded. E The Respondent State in June, 1961 rescinded a contract dated December 26, 1960 with the appellant for construction of a hostel for boys on the ground that not even 10 per cent of the work had been completed despite a lapse of nine months. Claiming that the termination of the contract was illegal, the appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 32,000 including a claim of Rs. 20,000 as damages for breach of contract. The trial F court decreed the suit with future interest. Later by a separate order on an application by the Plaintiff under s. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Trial Court corrected the judgment and decree by including pendente lite interest. G The High Court in an appeal by the Respondent against the main judgment, disallowed the Appellant's claim for damages and reduced the decretal amount to Rs. 4,783.33. Further, the High Court allowed the -- Respondent's revision application and set aside the grant of pendente lite ¥ interest. H Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 524 DWARAKADAS v. STATE[SETIII,J.] 525 HELD : 1. The omission in not granting the pendente lite interest A could not be held to be an accidental omission or mistake as was wrongly done by the trial court. The High Court was, therefore, justified in setting aside the aforesaid order by accepting the revision petition filed by the State. [527-H; 528-A] Thirngnanavali Amal v. P. Venugopala, AIR (1940) Mad 29, approved. B l' Jainab Bai v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (1969) Madhya Pradesh Journal 716, disapproved. Feroz Shah v. State, AIR (1957) Madhya Bharat 50;Maharaj Puttu Lal v. Sripal Singh, AIR (1937) Oudh 191 and West Bengal Financial Corporation C v. Bertram Scott (I) Ltd., AIR (1983) Cal 381, referred to. 2. The High Court was not justified in disallowing the claim of the appellant for Rs. 20,000 on account of damages as expected profit out of the contract which was found to have been illegally rescinded. The grant of damages by the Tri~! Court which was 10% of the contract price was D reasonable and permissible particularly when the High Court had con· curred with the finding of the trial court regarding breach of contract. [530-C-EJ A. T. Brij Pal Singh v. State of Gujarat, [1984] 4 SCC 59 and Mohd. Salamatullah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR (1977) SC 1481, E referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1209 of 1992. From the Judgment and Order dated 19.7.83 of the Madhya Pradesh F High Court in F.A No. 86 of 1973. S.K. Garnbhir for the Appellant. Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal and S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SETHI, J. In response to the tenders invited by the respondent- State, the appellant herein was allotted the work for the construction of a hostel for 100 boys at polytechnic Ujjain for which agreement (Ex. P. 22) G was executed between the parties on 26th December,· 1960. The entire work H 526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R. A was required to be completed within 29 months with further condition that 1/4 of the work was to be completed within 5 months, half the work to be completed within 10 months and 3/4 work was to be completed within 15 months. The work order was issued to the appellant on 26th December, 1960 who started construction on 28th December, 1960. The Superintend- ing Engineer is alleged to have obstructed the progress of the work with B the result that the work could not be completed within the time schedule.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.