Dismissed¶18

Mathura Dass v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jan 2025RSA/2506/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RSA-2506-1998 (O&M), Punjab & Haryana HC, decided 16-01-2025, Deepak Gupta J (single judge): second appeal by Mathura Dass against concurrent findings of Courts below DISMISSED; forfeiture of earnest money Rs.15,100/- (order 25.06.1987, respondent No.4) and subsequent order 17.11.1988 (defendant No.3) upheld; tender offer Ex.D1, undertaking 29.12.1986 Ex.D2, acceptance/work order Ex.D4, new rates w.e.f. 01.01.1987, plaintiff failed to start work despite Ex.D5 direction of Executive Engineer; no illegality in forfeiture of security amount; concurrent findings of fact not disturbed; prayer for fresh notice declined; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

No illegality was committed by the defendants in forfeiting the security amount. ¶17

Mathura Dass Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

205 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

RSA-2506-1998 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 16, 2025

¶3

Mathura Dass … Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Punjab and others …Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶7

Present: - Mr. Sumit Sinha, Advocate for the appellant.

¶8

Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

¶9

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶10

It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is no longer in contact with him. Learned counsel for the appellant prays to issue fresh no%ce to the appellant. The said request is declined.

¶11

A perusal of the file would reveal that this RSA was filed by the plain%ff against concurrent findings of the Courts below. The suit for declara%on was filed by the plain%ff-appellant against respondentsdefendants seeking declara%on that order dated 25.06.1987 passed by respondent No.4 forfei%ng the earnest money of �15,100/-; and the subsequent order passed by defendant No.3 on 17.11.1988 are null, illegal and void against the principles of jus%ce.

¶12

The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have found that the plain%ff had made an offer to the tender of the defendants vide Ex.D1. He had modified the offer and gave undertaking on 29.12.1986 vide Ex.D2. The tender of the plain%ff was accepted and he was directed to execute the work vide Ex.D4. The work was to be carried out in accordance with new rates applicable from 01.01.1987 as was agreed by the plain%ff. As such, the plain%ff could not complain that the rates could not be accepted as per his offer. Plain%ff was again directed by the Execu%ve Engineer vide Ex.D5 to start the work, but he failed to do so.

¶13

Sarita Rani 2025.01.16 17:20 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

¶14

RSA-2506-1998 (O&M)

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

2025:PHHC:005776

¶17

In above circumstances, no illegality has been commi=ed by the defendants in forfei%ng the security amount.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal. There is no reason to disturb the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the Courts below. As such, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶19

January 16, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No

¶20

Sarita Rani 2025.01.16 17:20 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order

Mathura Dass v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathura Dass v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Pramod Kumar Vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and Others

Jagpreet Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ravi Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Others

J.S Brar Vs Punjab Financial Corpn Chd & Ors.

Bakshish Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.