Gujarat High Court
Bharat Traders Prop.Of Nagindas H Vora vs State Of Gujarat Through Chief ... on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1305/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1305 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=======================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
=======================================
BHARAT TRADERS PROP.OF NAGINDAS H VORA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY & ANR.
=======================================
Appearance:
MR KG SUKHWANI(871) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS DEVANSHIBA RANA AGP for the Respondents
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 96 of
the Civil Procedure Code challenging the impugned judgment
and decree dated 29.02.2012 passed by the learned Judge, Court
No.7, City Civil Court, Bhadra, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be
referred to as "the trial Court") in Summary Suit (CCC) No. 416 of
1999 whereby the trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1305/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
appellant.
2. The facts of the present case are that the appellant is
carrying the business as Contractor and the respondents have
invited the tender for transportation of fabricated parts of Radial
Gates of Und - II Project. In response to the said tender, the
appellant submitted its offer and the same was accepted and the
contract agreement was signed by the concerned, wherein terms
and conditions were stipulated and, thereafter, the work was
allocated to the appellant and the appellant has deposited some
amount as security deposit. It is the case of the appellant that
the respondents have not refunded the security deposit and also
not paid the difference of amount as stipulated in the plaint. It is
further the case of the appellant that the appellant has filed the
summary suit for the recovery of the amount of Rs.4,59,913/-.
2.1 The trial Court has framed the issues in the suit which
reads as under:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that an amount of
Rs.78,445/- was deposited by way of F.D.R. as
security deposit ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of
security deposit by way of F.D.R. ?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the payment
was made as per the conditions of the
contract ?
4. Whether the defendant proves that an amount
of Rs.2,68,553/- was required to be repaid by
the plaintiff ?
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1305/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that an amount of
Rs.40,000/- was deposited because of undue
influence advanced by the Executive
Engineer?
6. Whether the plaintiff proves that an amount of
Rs,4,59,913/- is required to be paid by the
defendants?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest ? If
yes, at what rate?
8. What order and decree ?
2.2 The trial Court has answered the aforesaid issue Nos.1, 3
and 4 in the affirmative and issue Nos.2, 5, 6 and 7 in the
negative.
2.3 The trial Court, after hearing the respective parties and
considering the relevant evidence, dismissed the suit.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the present
appeal is filed.
4. I have heard Mr.K. G. Sukhwani, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and Ms.Devanshiba Rana, learned Assistant
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents at length and
considered the the judgment and the reasons recorded by the
trial Court and the record and proceedings.
5. Mr.Sukhwani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1305/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
appeal and has submitted that the appellant is carrying the
business of contract and the appellant was assigned the work
and contract agreement to that effect was signed on certain
terms and conditions and deposited some amount as security
deposit. He has submitted that since the security deposit and
difference of the amount has not been paid, the appellant had
filed the aforesaid suit. He has submitted that the learned Judge
has committed serious error while interpreting the conditions
stipulated in the work contract mainly the special condition,
which reads thus:-
"For payment purpose K. M. will be consider from Thasra
workshop to Und Dam site for loaded trailer. 50% of the tender
rate for weight carted will be consider for return trip, however, it
will be limited to 10 M.T. or 50% of weight actually carted from
Thasra to Und, whichever is less. For payment purpose weight
will be consider on theoretical basis."
5.1 Mr.Sukhwani, learned counsel has submitted that the
learned Judge has completely misread the aforesaid condition on
the contrary the amount which was paid to the present appellant
was not in excess, however, it has demanded to refund the said
excess amount and, therefore, the appellant under duress and
pressure has repaid the said amount by way of demand draft of
Rs.40,000/-. He has submitted that the amount of security
deposit lying with the respondents was also legally adjusted
against the bill of the present appellant, which was not returned
to the appellant. He has submitted that as per account, the
appellant has to recover the amount of Rs.4,59,913/- and
therefore the appellant has filed the suit before the concerned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1305/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Court to recover the said amount, for which the otherside has
filed the written statement. He has submitted that after
considering the written statement as well as documentary
evidence, the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and
decree which is illegal, improper, erroneous and against the
settled principles of law. He has submitted that the present
appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and
decree deserves to be quash and set aside.
6. Per contra, Ms.Rana, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents has submitted that the learned
Judge has not committed any error of facts and law in passing
the impugned judgment and decree. She has submitted that in
para - 15 the learned Judge has discussed the evidence more
particularly the evidence of the present appellant at Exhibit 23.
She has submitted that the appeal being meritless deserves to
be dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree deserves
to be confirmed.
7. It is worthwhile to reproduce the cross-examination of the
appellant as under:-
"(1) He has deposed that he was engaged in the business
of transport he has signed the documents of the contract
with the government regarding the work of transport. It is
true that as per the terms of the contract, he had to
perform the work and the counterpart had to pay the
money accordingly and all the terms were accepted by
them. He has completed the work within the time limit as
per the terms and he has also received the money
accordingly.
(2) It is true that later the debtor came to know that the
money had been overpaid and, therefore, he wrote to him.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1305/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
It is true that according to the defendant, he had said that
Rupees two lakh sixty eight thousand five hundred and
fifty-three rupees had been overpaid. It is true that they
had directly deposited Rs. 74,250/- as security. They had
informed him to pay the remaining amount out of the
amount they believed to have been overpaid.
(3) It is true that out of the remaining amount, he sent
Rs. 40,000/- to the respondents through a demand draft.
He has stated that in fact, no such excess has been paid to
him. He has also made a statement orally and in writing at
that time, but despite this, he has been forced to pay Rs.
40,000/- by way of a demand draft. He has personally
given the draft of Rs. 40,000/- and he received a receipt for
the same. When he went to give the demand draft of Rs.
40,000/-, no ill-treatment was done to him but no contact
will be made in future and they said they would be
blacklisted and asked to watch.
(4) It is true that he had not filed a complaint against any
officer or person of the defendant in connection with the
threat he received, nor have he made a representation to
any superior officer. After giving a demand draft of forty
thousand, he had not given any other demand draft for this
debt. It is not true that he has wrongly stated that the
defendants have recovered this money by putting pressure
on him and threatening him. It is not true that he did not
have any amount left to receive from the defendants."
8. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by
learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and the
material on record and also personally examined the same.
Considering the evidence of the appellant recorded before the
trial Court, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge has not
committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned
judgment and decree. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in
the impugned judgment and decree and there is no substance in
the appeal and hence, the same deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Registry is directed to send
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1305/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
back the record and proceedings to the concerned Court
forthwith.
Pending civil application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
