Dismissed

Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Uptadan Nigam v. M/S Nav Bharat Construction Co.

Rajasthan HC20 Mar 2024CFA/112/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two connected first appeals. One appeal by the plaintiff-appellant sought higher interest and additional amount; the other by the defendant sought to set aside the decree. The court found the trial court's findings on evidence and amount reasonable and awarded interest at the judgment court's discretion, allowing neither party.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals were dismissed; no order as to cost. Decree to be drawn accordingly.

Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Uptadan Nigam Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:26605]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 111/1994

¶4

Navbharat Construction Company A Registered Partnership Firm, through its Partner Mool Chand Jain, Head Office Madanganj Kishangarh and Branch Office at Kota.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., having its registered office at Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (former known as RSEB)

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 112/1994

¶11

Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., having its registered office at Vidhyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (former known as RSEB)

¶12

----Appellant

¶13

Versus

¶14

M/s. Nav Bharat Construction Co., a Partnership Firm through Shri Mool Chand Jain, Partner, having its Office at Madanganj Kishangarh.

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg for M/s. Nav Bharat Construction Company. For Respondent(s) : None for RSEB

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment

¶18

20/03/2024

¶19

These two appeals were preferred aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 27.01.1994 in Civil Suit No.108/1983 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.2, Kota whereby suit of plaintiff was allowed and a decree in favour of plaintiff was

¶20

(2 of 6) [CFA Nos.-111/1994 & 112/1994]

¶21

[2024:RJ-JP:26605]

¶22

passed. The decree passed by learned Trial Court is reproduced as under:-

¶23

“ fu’d’kZr% oknh dk okn e; [kpkZ Lohdkj fd;k tkdj oknh ds i{k esa 58584 #i;s 76 iSls dh fMØh ikfjr dh tkrh gS tks jkf”k oknh izfroknh ls ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA oknh izfroknh ls 10-3-82 ls fu.kZ; dh frfFk rd 9 izfr”kr okf’kZd dh nj ls lk/kkj.k C;kt 58584 #i;s 76 iSls ij ikus dk vf/kdkjh gksxk o oknh fu.kZ; dh frfFk ls olwyh rd 6 izfr”kr okf’kZd dh nj ls lk/kkj.k C;kt 58584 #i;s 76 iSls ij ikus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA ipkZ fMØh cuk;k tkosA ”

¶24

Since S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 111/1994 is preferred by appellant-plaintiff dissatisfied from aforesaid decree with prayer to modify the decree to the extent that amount of ₹6312.02/- be added to original amount and the interest rate be enhanced to 15% per annum.

¶25

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 112/1994 is preferred by the appellant-defendant aggrieved from the judgment and decree with prayer to set aside aforementioned decree passed in favour of plaintiff.

¶26

Facts giving rise to these appeals are that plaintiff has instituted a civil suit for recovery of money against the defendant for sum of ₹79,314.79/- with interest of 15% per annum. In plaint, it is stated that in pursuant to a contract awarded to the plaintiff for laying down stone and levelling them for the railway siding of rail line approaching the Thermal Power Project belonging to defendant at Kota. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant has withdrawn the contract on 13.01.1981 but has not prepared the final bill despite repeated request by the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff has claimed amount for 5000 cubic metre work and

¶27

(3 of 6) [CFA Nos.-111/1994 & 112/1994]

¶28

[2024:RJ-JP:26605]

¶29

security deposit of ₹14,313/-. The total amount claimed was ₹64,869.79/- and further interest as ₹14,445/-.

¶30

The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant with filing of written statement, wherein it was stated that the contract was given to the plaintiff with the condition that the work has to be commenced on 17.11.1978 and had to be finished by 16.05.1979 but the plaintiff went on work with the stones supplied by the Board upto 13.01.1981, and the plaintiff has failed to execute and complete the work. The plaintiff has not used the stones supplied by the defendant. According to defendant the plaintiff was asked to laid down the stones and level them in a definite profile in which the side slope had to be 1:1.5 but the plaintiff has not laid down the stones correctly. The defendant has further stated that the defendant has agreed to pay at the rate of ₹1.75 per cubic metre but due to wrong slope and profile which was not in accordance with drawing and specifications given by the defendant, the defendant had to suffer enormously and the consumption and stones has increased appreciably. Ultimately, the work was completed by the Bridge construction corporation of Jaipur. The matter was referred to arbitrator whose award is challenged by the defendant and matter is pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Kota.

¶31

Learned Trial Court after considering the pleadings of the parties has framed five issues. PW1 was examined on behalf of plaintiff whereas two witnesses DW1 and DW2 were examined on behalf of defendant. The Trial Court has decided issue nos.1 and 2 in favour of plaintiff and issue nos.3 and 4 against the defendant. On the basis of aforesaid, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in

¶32

(4 of 6) [CFA Nos.-111/1994 & 112/1994]

¶33

[2024:RJ-JP:26605]

¶34

favour of plaintiff. Thus, both the parties have challenged the judgment and decree and we are disposing of both the appeals.

¶35

When the matters are taken up then no one is present on behalf of appellant-defendant in S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 112/1994. Even on last occasion 27.02.2023 none appeared on behalf of appellant-defendant. 8. On 09.12.2021, no one was present on behalf of defendant- "Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (RSEB)" . It appears that defendant-RSEB is not interested in pursuing the S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 112/1994, therefore, S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 112/1994 is liable to be dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶36

In S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 111/1994, learned counsel for appellant is present but no one is present on behalf of respondentdefendant. 10. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of ₹79314.79/- but the Trial Court has partially allowed the suit. He also submitted that the Trial Court has reduced the rate of interest without any reasoning. He submitted that the evidence on record suggested that the plaintiff has executed the work as assigned to him till his contract was terminated but the Trial Court without realizing that the plaintiff has earnestly performed his part of the contract, deducted the sum claimed by the plaintiff. He also submitted that the Trial Court has not considered this issue though sufficient evidence is available on record. He also submitted that the plaintiff was able to establish his case from the evidence on record, therefore, he is entitled to higher rate of interest.

¶37

(5 of 6) [CFA Nos.-111/1994 & 112/1994]

¶38

[2024:RJ-JP:26605]

¶39

Heard learned counsel for appellant-plaintiff and also perused the entire record.

¶40

There is a serious difference in the preparation of final bill between the plaintiff and the defendant. Herein this case, initially the work contract was awarded to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was required to execute the work on the specification and the design provided by the defendant, within specific timeline. The Trial Court while considering the issue no.2 has considered that had it been the case that if plaintiff has executed the entire work then the payment would be different but the plaintiff himself has admitted that he was asked to appear for verification of work, and he did not followed the advice, which means he abstained from inspection.

¶41

A perusal of consideration of material on record had issue no.2 clearly suggest that the Trial Court has examined this issue in detail and on the basis of final bill after verified work from the material on record, concluded that the plaintiff is entitled for ₹58,584.76/-. I do not find any reason to disagree with the well reasoned findings recorded by the Trial Court.

¶42

As regard to interest is concerned the Trial Court after considering the rate of interest prevalent has awarded interest at the rate of 9% from 10.03.1982 till date of judgment and 6% after the judgment. The rate of interest awarded by the Trial Court is also reasonable and the plaintiff has no right to claim interest at the rate of 15%. Award of interest rate must be either contractual or judicious discretion.

¶43

Considering the material on record, the Trial Court has rightly decided issue nos.1 and 2 and there is no perversity or

¶44

(6 of 6) [CFA Nos.-111/1994 & 112/1994]

¶45

[2024:RJ-JP:26605]

¶46

illegality in the findings recorded by the Trial Court, therefore, this appeal is devoid of merits. No. one has challenged the findings on issues No. 3 and 4, therefore, conclusion is liable to be affirmed.

¶47

In view of discussion made herein above, S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 111/1994 and S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 112/1994 filed aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 27.01.1994 in Civil Suit No.108/1983 are hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.

¶48

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶49

Decree be drawn accordingly.

¶50

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶51

Arun/30-31

Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Uptadan Nigam v. M/S Nav Bharat Construction Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Uptadan Nigam v. M/S Nav Bharat Construction Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayram S/O Ramlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Firoz Ahmed S/O Ayyaj Ahmed Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramphool S/O Rampal Vs Ramkunwar S/O Nanagram

Gopal S/O Ratan Singh Vs Bhojraj Singh S/O Bhagwat Singh

Union of India Vs M/S Jhoomar Lal Swaroop Lal

Lokesh Dullar S/O Late Bhagirathmal, Vs Distt Collector Alwar