Dismissed

Dinesh Chandra Verma v. the State of M.P.and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jul 2013FA/387/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant challenged the dismissal of his suit for recovery of unpaid work dues. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court rightly deducted claims due to deficiencies in work and lack of written intimation regarding obstruction.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; parties to bear the cost of appeal; decree drawn up accordingly.

Dinesh Chandra Verma Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

ran-v MWI" W
IN THE.Mi.HIGHr5:‘%~;a)§:}vCOURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ’ JRABALPU
r£‘ri I.,;;«»u.»
V 7 Flrst Appeal No. g1“
/95f
pgeuantgmamtiff ‘ . . .. “r g ¢ ‘ ,» (
. Dlnesh Chandra Verma, sonof
Vasudev Is Llr' "
Verama, 57 years,
resldent of Shantl nager 6 Vaard.
Jagdalpur,(I“§> Disttw ,»\Bastar?$9 N. §
Versgzs.
i
' Res Mnv‘kondentss Defendants''fmw'laegtwnd‘:k § . ; 1> (n1‘M State of Madhya Pradesh
through the Colléctar Bastar
’
:
Dlst. Jagdalpur, ‘
2. Supermtendmg Englneer,
Jal Sansadhan Mandal'
3 Executlve Engineer,
Jal Sansadhan D1v. Jagdalpur’ ”V
V
3r APPEALUNDER
PROQEDU§_#g§*t%1¢,1 908 «:‘mSECTION¥ MMHM;96 M g? ,¢;H;i.;4‘1vw§t,zu.viiTHE w,GLODE$CIVI
Imgnfg ’§r-'

¶2

¶3

F.A. No. 387 of 1995 Page 1 ofz

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR First Appeal No. 387 of 1995

¶5

\é

¶6

APPELLANT Dinesh Chandra Verma Plaintiff

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

RESPONDENTS 1 State of Madhya Pradesh Defendants (Now^Stateof Chhattisgarh) 2 Superintending Engineer

¶9

3 Executive Engineer

¶10

[First^Appealunder Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908]

¶11

Present:

¶12

Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G. D. Vaswani, Govt. Advocate alongwith Mr. Sanjeev K. ' Lawyer for the respondents / State.

¶13

SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma,J.

¶14

(Passed^{on04.07.2013)}

¶15

By this First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for^short'the Code') appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1995 passed by the 15‘ Additional District Judge, Jagdalpur in‘Civil Suit No. 10-B/94, whereby the trial Court has dismissed the suit for payment of claim on the ground of work carried by the appellant.

¶16

As per plaint allegation, work contract was given by respondents to the appellant, he has carried out thevwork, but on the ground of objection made by Forest Department, work could not have been completed. Time was granted to the appellant, finally he was not in position to complete the work. After measurement final dues have been paid to the appellant, but unnecessary deduction has been made by the respondents. On the aforesaid basis, suit for recovery of Rs. 15,488/- and 26154/- i.e. amount of unwarranted deduction has been filed. As per defence of respondent, there was no obstruction by the Forest Department, appellant has failed to

¶17

r7:

¶18

--Ev:'

¶19

F.A. No. 387 OF 1995 Page 2 OF 2

¶20

carried out the work. His work was OF sub standard, after measurement^the ‘Both amount has been deducted. the parties have led evidence, after providing^{opportunityofhearing} to the parties, trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that^{respondentshaverightlydeductedtheclaimof} the appellant.

¶21

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties^and perused^{thejudgmentanddecree} impugned and records of Court below.

¶23

A5 per evidence of plaintiff himself,^{hehasnotcompletedtheworkonthe} ground^{ofobstructionbyForestDepartment,buthasfailedtointimatethe} authorities in writing. Plaintiff himself has admitted sufficient time has been awarded to the appellant^{andtimewasalsoextended.} In para 12 he has specifically admitted that on the basis of deficiency, deduction have been made, even he has not objected^{atthetimeoffinal} payment. Defence witness, B. P. Chandrakar has deposed in detail relating to such deficiency and required deduction on^{thebasisofaforesaidevidence,Courtbelowhas} dismissed the suit. Judgment and decree is based on the evidenzLe adduced on behalf^of both the parties, Court below has considered^{theoralanddocumentaryevidence} of the parties in perspective manner^{andhasnotcommittedanyillegality.} l do not find any illegalityⁱⁿ thejudgment^{anddecreeimpugned.}

¶24

Consequently, the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶25

Parties shall bear the cost of appeal.

¶26

Advocate fees as perschedule.

¶27

Chandra

¶28

Decree be drawn up accordingly.

¶29

Sd/— T. P. Sharma Jude g

¶30

Yv‘fi’ a

Dinesh Chandra Verma v. the State of M.P.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Chandra Verma v. the State of M.P.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Pratap Singh Vs Smt.Neelam Singh and Others

Patlaso and Ors. Vs State of M.P. Thru. Collector and Anr.

M/S Nand Kishore Mohan and Others Vs Canera Bank, Raipur

Satya Dev Pandey And Ors. Vs Kiran Kant Robinson And Ors.

Smt.Kumud Yadav Vs M.D.,Bhilai Steel Plant and Ors.

M/s Himcon Estate and Developers Ltd. Vs The President Maitri Education Society