Dismissed

The Principal, College of Engineering Farmagudi and Anr., v. Ester Faria through Attorney Edwin Faria

Bombay HC23 Sept 2021FA/297/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against a trial court decree upholding the termination of a supply contract. The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that "time was not the essence of the contract" and dismissed the appeal regarding the penalty and interest awarded.

What did the court decide?

"Dismissed" appeal. "There shall be no order for costs."

The Principal, College of Engineering… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

FA-297-2008-J.DOC

¶2

Suchitra

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.297/2008

¶5

THE PRINCIPAL, College Of Engineering Farmagudi, Ponda, Goa.

¶6

STATE OF GOA, Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Goa, Secretariat, Panaji, Goa.

¶7

...APPELLANTS

¶8

Versus

¶9

MRS. ESTER FARIA major, married, resident of Khorlim, Mapusa (Through her duly constituted attorney Mr. Edwin Faria). …RESPONDENT

¶10

Mr. P. Faldessai, Additional Government Advocate for the Appellants.

¶11

Mr. Vishal Sawant, Advocate for the Respondent .

¶12

CORAM: M. S. SONAK, J.

¶13

DATED: 23^rd September 2021

¶14

JUDGMENT:

¶15

1. Heard Mr. P. Faldessai, learned Additional

¶16

Government Advocate for the Appellants and Mr. Vishal Sawant
for the Respondent.

¶17

Page 1 of 8 23^rd September 2021

¶18

FA-297-2008-J.DOC

¶19

2. The Appellants are the Original Defendants and the Respondent is the Original Plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 204/2004 instituted before District Court Judge-2, North Goa at Panaji (Trial Court).

¶20

3. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.04.2008 made by the Trial Court decreeing the suit and directing the defendants to pay 26,600/- together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 26.02.1990 till its realization. This compensation was ordered because the Trial Court agreed with the case of Plaintiff that the contract for the supply of certain electronic items was wrongfully terminated.`

¶21

4. Mr. Faldessai, the Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the tender conditions that reflect the contract between the parties make it clear that time was the essence of the contract. He submits that the evidence on record bears out that there was a delay in making supplies. He, therefore, submits that there was no error in the termination of the contract, and the impugned judgment and decree warrants interference. He relies on M/s. Hind Construction Contractors v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 70 and Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India and another, (1999) 9 SCC 449 in support of his contentions.

¶22

Page 2 of 8 23^rd September 2021

¶23

FA-297-2008-J.DOC

¶24

5. Mr. Vishal Sawant, the Learned Counsel for the respondent defended the impugned judgment and decree based on the reasoning reflected therein.

¶25

6. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.

¶26

7. The short point for determination in this appeal is whether based on evidence on record, the Learned Trial Judge was justified in holding that time was not the essence of the contract and therefore, there was no justification on the part of the defendants in terminating the contract for supply.

¶27

8. Now there is no dispute, that the contract between the parties is contained in tender conditions dated 28.07.1986 which were duly accepted by Plaintiff.

¶28

9. The clauses relevant to the determination of this issue

¶29

read as follows:-

¶30

“Clause 8- The goods supplied at college premises will be
finally accepted only after inspection by a competent
authority (inspection), appointed by the Principal, and the
decision of the Principal in this regard will be final.

¶31

Clause 9- The goods should be delivered at college premises
by the date prescribed in the supply order. In case of non-

¶32

Page 3 of 8 23^rd September 2021

¶33

FA-297-2008-J.DOC

¶34

delivery of delayed delivery against the order placed the
Principal reserves the right to impose a penalty of per week
of the amount of the order or to impose a penalty of ½ %
per week of the amount of the order or part supply delayed
as the case may be.

¶35

Clause 15-The approximate time of delivery should be
intimated by the tenderer in his tender or in his covering
letter.

¶36

Clause 16- The supply should be effected within the
specified period from the date of issue of the office order.

¶37

Clause 17- In case, the tenderer feels that the delivery
period cannot be adhered to an application to this effect,
should be made to the Principal, College of Engineering,
Farmagudi, Goa which may or may not be considered
according to the circumstances.

¶38

Clause 22- Once the supply order is placed with the
tenderer, if he fails to execute the supply, as per
specifications or in time, the order shall be cancelled
forthwith on a fresh order for the same shall be place with
the tenderer who has quoted the next higher rate and SHO
is willing to exact the supplies, failing which shall be placed
with the next tendered and so on the difference in the cost
between the rates of the defaulting tenderer and the
successful tenderer shall be recovered from defaulting
tenderer.”

¶39

10. From the clauses of the contract as also the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, there is no case

¶40

Page 4 of 8

¶41

23rd September 2021

¶42

FA-297-2008-J.DOC

¶43

made out to fault the reasoning of the Trial Court that time, in
this case, was not the essence of the contract. There is evidence
that at no stage, was there any strict insistence about supplies
within the period specified in the work orders. On no occasion,
was any penalty of ½% per week imposed on the Plaintiff for the
delay in supplies. No clause provides that delayed supplies will
entail termination rather clause 9 provides that the principal
reserves the right to impose a penalty of ½% per week in case of
delayed deliveries. Clause 17 gives an option to explain the delay
in making supplies. Even Clause 22, empowers cancellation of the
order for supplies and placing of the order with the next best
tenderer. All these clauses coupled with the other evidence on
record support the finding recorded by the trial court that in this
case, the time was not the essence of the contract.

¶44

11. Besides, in this case, there is evidence, that just before the issue of the letter of termination of the contract, supplies were attempted to be made on 17.09.1987 and thereafter on 21.09.1987. The plaintiff has deposed that the storekeeper refused to accept the deliveries on the said dates. The Trial Court has, therefore, quite correctly held that the defendants were not justified in terminating the entire contract, when, the store-keeper of the defendants refused to accept the supplies made within the prescribed period without assigning any reasons. The Trial Court

¶45

Page 5 of 8 23^rd September 2021

¶46

FA-297-2008-J.DOC

¶47

has quite correctly relied upon the evidence of the Plaintiff and
thereafter, drawn an adverse inference because of non-
examination of the storekeeper by the Defendants.

¶48

12. Besides, in this case, the witnesses on behalf of the defendants have not deposed from personal knowledge because the concerned officials present in the year 1987 had since retired or were otherwise unavailable. There is no documentary evidence to make good the case set out by the defendants. Upon cumulative consideration of these aspects, no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment and decree.

¶49

13. In M/s. Hind Construction (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held that the question whether the time is the essence of the contract, is a question of the intention of the parties to be gathered from the terms of the contract. The provision for imposition of penalty and extension would militate against such an inference. Time can be made the essence of the contract by fixing further period for the performance of a contract. In the present case, the contract contains provisions for extension, and there is no evidence that the defendants by addressing any letters made time the essence of the contract. Therefore, the decision assists the case of the Plaintiff rather than the Defendants.`

¶50

Page 6 of 8 23^rd September 2021

¶51

FA-297-2008-J.DOC

¶52

14. In Arosan Enterprises Ltd. (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held that when the contract itself provides for an extension of time, the same cannot be termed to be the essence of the contract and default however, in such a case does not make the contract voidable either. It becomes voidable provided the matter in issue can be brought within the ambit of the first part of Section 55 and it is only in that event that the Government would be entitled to claim damages and not otherwise. The contract, in the present case, had made provision for extension of time inter alia by imposing penalty. Neither was any penalty imposed nor were supplies rejected for any alleged delay. Therefore, even this decision does not assist the defendants in the facts of the present case.`

¶53

15. Mr. Faldessai finally submitted that the interest of 10% per annum is quite exorbitant and the same could not have exceeded 6% per annum. In this case, the plaintiff examined a retired bank officer (PW-3) who deposed that the lending rate on commercial loans in the year 1987 was generally 16.5%. She, however, admitted that this rate varies from category to category and the rate in the case of small-scale industries is much lesser. Having regard to this evidence and in the absence of any contrary evidence from the defendants, the Trial Court awarded interest at

¶54

Page 7 of 8 23^rd September 2021

¶55

FA-297-2008-J.DOC

¶56

the rate of 10% per annum. There is no error which warrants
interference in this appeal.

¶57

16. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶58

17. There shall be no order for costs.

¶59

M. S. SONAK, J.

¶60

Page 8 of 8 23^rd September 2021

The Principal, College of Engineering Farmagudi and Anr., v. Ester Faria through Attorney Edwin Faria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal, College of Engineering Farmagudi and Anr., v. Ester Faria through Attorney Edwin Faria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Abidali Abdulla Chengala Alias C.A. Abidali and 2 Ors.

Jerry Figueredo Vs Quepem Municipal Council Thr. Its Chief Officer and 9 Ors.

Vinod Tulshidas Naik and Anr., Vs Mary C. Diniz and 5 Ors.

Pedro Costa and Anr., Vs Ernest D'Costa Represented by His Legal Representatives 1. Miss Elona De Souza and 7 Ors.

Jacinta Lobo and Anr., Vs Antonio Ludovico Da Piedade Morais and 7 Ors.

Khatiza Beg, Rep. by Duly Constituted P.O.A Ms. Fatima Beg Vs Shaikh Zaffar and Anr.