Y. SAVARIMUTHU versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 947 · Decided: 30-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
947
Y. SAVARIMUTHU
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4495-4496 of 2019)
APRIL 30, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.80 – Notice – Appellant-
Government Contractor and respondent-State entered into an
agreement for strengthening the two-line pavement of NH7 – Dispute
arose between the parties – Superintending Engineer partially
terminated the contract on the ground that the appellant had not
shown progress in the project – Writ petition filed by the appellant
was dismissed – Writ appeal was also dismissed – Appellant had
issued a legal notice dated 14.01.2000 and two letters on different
dates to the respondents prior to the disposal of the writ appeal –
After dismissal of the writ appeal, the appellant filed a civil suit
against the respondents – Trial Court found substantial compliance
of s.80 CPC – However, the High Court found that provisions of s.
80 CPC were not complied with – In appeal, the State contended
that no notice was issued u/s. 80 CPC for the reason that none of
the three notices/letters of the appellant had stated that they were u/
s. 80 CPC – Held: The notice was duly served upon the authorities
– Cause of Action was sufficiently set out in the said notice, which
was the illegality of the partial termination of the contract – A notice
does not have to state the section under which it is made so long as
the ingredients of sub-section (3) of s.80 are met – It is admitted
that there was no need for any legal notice before filing the writ
appeal – The notice, therefore, that was sent on 14.01.2000, was
only u/s. 80 CPC in the event the writ appeal failed and a suit would
have to be filed – The judgment of the trial Court was correct –
Thus, impugned judgment of the High Court set aside and matter
remitted back to the High Court to dispose of appeals on merits.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. On a perusal of the notice dated 14.01.2000, it is
clear that this is a legal notice sent by a lawyer of the appellant to
the authorities concerned.  It is not disputed that it was by
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 947
947
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
registered A.D. and served upon the authorities.  There is also
no dispute that the cause of action is sufficiently set out in the
said notice, which is the illegality of the partial termination of the
contract on 16.12.1999.  It was also made clear that though a
Writ Appeal at that point of time was going to be filed against the
Writ Petition dismissal, yet this would be a notice to take
“appropriate legal action” against the State.  There is no doubt,
whatsoever, that more than two months have elapsed from the
date of this notice, after which the Suit has been filed.  In fact, the
Suit was filed long after, on 12.09.2002.  Quite apart from this, on
29.01.2000 also, the letter of the appellant made it clear to the
Divisional Engineer that not only is the partial termination bad in
law but that the payments due for work would have to be made.
[Para 15] [960-E-G]
2. It is clear, therefore, that there is sufficient compliance
with the provisions of Section 80 CPC as has been introduced by
the Amendment Act introducing section 80(3) into the Statute
book.  The respondents’ argument that section 80 is not expressly
referred to and that the legal notice and letters were written prior
to the disposal of the Writ Appeal have no legs to stand on.  This
is for the reason that a notice does not have to state the section
under which it is made so long as the ingredients of sub-section
(3) of section 80 are met.  It is admitted that there was no need
for any legal notice before filing the Writ Appeal.  The notice,
therefore, that was sent on 14.01.2000, was only under Section
80 CPC in the event the Writ Appeal failed and a Suit would have
to be filed. [Para 16] [960-H; 961-A-C]
Dhian Singh Sobha Singh & Another v. Union of India
[1958] SCR 781 ; Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of
India (2005) 4 SCC 315 : [2005] 2 SCR 680 ;
Ghanshyam Dass and Others v. Dominion of India and
Others (1984) 3 SCC 46 : [1984] 3 SCR 229 ; State of
A.P. and Others v. Pioneer Builders, A.P. (2006) 12 SCC
119 : [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 571 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1958] SCR 781
relied on
Para 11
[2005] 2 SCR 680
relied on
Para 12
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
949
[1984] 3 SCR 229
relied on
Para 13
[2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 571
relied on
Para 14
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4495-
4496 of 2019.
From 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.