Madras High Court
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Y.Savarimuthu (Died) on 26 May, 2021
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.05.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
A.S.(MD)No.141 of 2007
and
Cross Appeal (MD)No.56 of 2009 &
M.P(MD)Nos.1 of 2007 & 2 of 2009
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by its
District Collector,
Virudhunagar.
2. The Superintending Engineer,
National Highways, Tirunelveli.
3. The Divisional Engineer,
National Highways, Virudhunagar.
..Appellants in A.S(MD)No.141/2007/Defendants/
Respondents in Cross Appeal
Vs.
1. Y.Savarimuthu (Died)
.. Respondent No.1 in A.S(MD)No.141/2001/Plaintiff/
Cross Appellant No.1
2. Soosaiammal
3. S.Albert Sekar
4. Dikkuruse
5. Glory
6. Sengole
7. Leo Francis Xavier
8. Alangara Philomi
9. Josphine Navamani
.. Respondents 2 to 9 in A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross Appellants 2 to 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
(RR 2 to 9/cross appellants 2 to 9, are impleaded vide order
dated 12.02.2021 made in CMP (MD)
No.5044/2020 in AS (MD)No.141/2007)
(In view of the order dated 12.02.2021 made in
CMP(MD)No.5044/2020 in AS(MD)No.141/2007 by
PSNJ and SKJ, Cross-Appellants 2 to 9 are brought on
record as LRs of the deceased Cross-Appellant)
***
Prayer in A.S.(MD)No.141 of 2007 : Appeal Suit filed under Section
96 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the judgment and
decree in O.S.No.2 of 2009 dated 29.06.2007 on the file of the Additional
District Court, Fast Track Court, Virudhunagar.
Prayer in Cross Appeal (MD)No.56 of 2009 : Cross Appeal filed under
Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the
judgment and decree in O.S.No.2 of 2009 dated 29.06.2007 on the file of
the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court, Virudhunagar.
***
For Appellants/ : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
Defendants/ Special Government Pleader
Respondents
For Respondents/: Mr.Srinivasa Raghavan for RR 2 to 9
/Plaintiffs/Cross R1-Died
Appellants
JUDGMENT
The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 30.04.2019 made in
Civil Appeal Nos.4495 & 4496 of 2019 (SLP [C]Nos.30945 & 30946 of
2015) remitted this appeal to this Court to dispose of the same on merits
at the earliest. The question came to be decided therein is whether a
notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
referred to as "CPC") has been given to the State Government.
2. Originally, the first respondent herein filed a suit in Pauper
O.P.No.3 of 2002 under Order 33, Rule 1 and Order 7, Rule 1 of the CPC
praying to permit the plaintiff to sue as an indigent person ; to declare
that the order dated 16.12.1999 passed by the third
respondent/defendant in his proceedings No.6870/97/98/JD, partially
determining the agreement as illegal and void ; and to direct the
respondents/defendants to pay a sum of Rs.3,30,40,000/-.
3. The prayer of the plaintiff to sue as indigent person was
rejected on 15.07.2003, against which, C.M.A.No.223 of 2004 was filed.
Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 07.03.2005 allowing the appeal,
the suit was taken on file as O.S.No.2 of 2005 on the file of the District
Court (Fast Track Court), Virudhunagar. The suit was partly decreed,
against which, the defendants preferred this appeal. The plaintiff, being
the respondent in the appeal, also filed cross appeal.
3.1. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
per their status before the Trial Court, i.e., plaintiff and defendants
respectively.
4. The case of the plaintiff, as has been culled out from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
plaint, is that he, being the First Class Contractor in various Government
Departments, executed various works running to several Crores. He
succeeded in the bid floated by the Highways Department for
strengthening the existing two lane pavement of N.H.7 from 17/910 to
42/0, Madurai-Kanyakumari Section and entered into an agreement for
Rs.3,09,62,156/- on 15.10.1997. The term of the contract was for a
period of 18 months. During January 1999 only, approval for Profile
Corrective Course, which is a sine qua non, for commencing the work
was issued for a portion and even for the rest, it was given only on
06.12.1999 and the hot mixing plant was inspected by the defendants
only on 01.02.1999 leading to certain modifications, all of which caused
enormous delay in executing the work. Thus, the defendants delayed the
execution of the work at every stage, and given extension of contract till
31.03.2000 vide order dated 06.12.1999. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot
be blamed for the delay. In spite of the same, the plaintiff executed
works to the tune of Rs.1,35,74,000/-, which is about 25% of the work.
Suddenly, nearly 10 days after issuing the order extending the contract,
the third defendant, partially terminated the contract without any valid
reason and without issuing any prior notice on 16.12.1999 and also failed
to sanction the bills.
5. According to the plaintiff, since the reasons assigned by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
defendants are not sustainable in the eye of law, he filed a writ petition
in W.P.No.20432 of 1999 before this Court, which was dismissed on
24.12.1999 with a direction to seek the remedy for damages before the
Civil Court. Aggrieved by the said order, he filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.
122 of 2000, and the same went in vain. However, the second defendant
called for fresh tender, which caused a huge loss to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff submitted that the lowest offer of the subsequent bidder was
rejected on the ground that the said rates are unworkable. The
defendants worked out a sum of Rs.73,15,157/- being the extra cost
involved in the execution of the balance work and recovered a sum of
Rs.60,95,131/- from the plaintiff, besides directing him to pay a sum of
Rs.12,20,026/-. In such backdrop, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking
the aforesaid reliefs.
6. It is averred in the written statement filed by the defendants
that the plaintiff, who was awarded with the subject work, was to
complete the same by 19.04.1999. He was given time till 31.12.1999.
Since even thereafter no effective progress was shown, the contract was
partially terminated and the plaintiff was directed to pay the balance
sum. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff had not shown any
interest in executing the work. As there was enormous delay in
executing the work which caused loss to the Government, the defendants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
were forced to go for fresh tender, owing to urgency.
7. The termination was questioned by the plaintiff before this Court
in W.P.No.20432 of 1999, which was dismissed, and the appeal filed
against the said order also met with the same fate. The defendants also
claimed that the plaintiff was not an indigent person, as he owned
valuable properties and had sufficient means to pay the Court Fee. The
defendants claimed that the plaintiff did not issue notice under Section
80 of CPC to them, who are Government and Public Officers, prior to the
institution of the suit and thus, the suit was to be dismissed.
8. The Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence, partly decreed the suit directing the defendants, who are the
appellants herein, to pay a sum of Rs.87,01,200/- with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit, till the date of
realisation. The plaintiff was also directed to pay the necessary Court
Fee. Thus, the appeal.
9. Claiming that the suit ought to have been decreed as prayed for
and alleging that the impugned decree caused him a loss of
Rs.34,39,529/- and also the award of interest is also less, the plaintiff
filed Cross Appeal (MD)No.56 of 2009. He prayed to award a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 6/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
Rs.1,54,10,000/- and also to pay interest on the awarded claim amount
at the rate of 15%.
10. This Court allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 17.06.2015
setting aside the decree and judgment of the Trial Court dated
29.06.2007 made in O.S.No.2 of 2005. As indicated above, on appeal,
the Supreme Court remitted back this appeal to this Court, by setting
aside the judgment of this Court and restoring the judgment of the trial
Court.
11. The sheet-anchor of the contentions of the defendants in the
grounds of appeal is that the mandate under Section 80 CPC has not
been complied with and hence, the suit was not maintainable. The other
ground is the poor quality and also the enormous delay in the execution
of the work by the plaintiff leading to the non-settlement of bills and
termination of the contract.
12. As the plaintiff is no more, his legal heirs, have been
impleaded as respondents 2 to 9 and it is their case that the Supreme
Court held that notice under Section 80 CPC is not mandatory to institute
the suit. It is submitted that the respondents delayed the project at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 7/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
every stage, which is evident from the documents produced by the
plaintiff before the Trial Court and also the same is substantiated by the
oral evidence. It is submitted that the trial Court, while properly
appreciating the facts and circumstances coupled with oral and
documentary evidence, committed serious error in awarding the claim
amount, which has to be necessarily set right by this first appellate
Court.
13. Though the trial Court has framed as many as eight questions
for determination, this Court, in the first round of this appeal framed two
primary questions, which revolved around Section 80 of the CPC and
having answered those questions in favour of the defendants, this Court
did not take into consideration the other issues and the merits and
demerits of the those issues.
14. However, in view of the order of the Supreme Court dated
30.04.2019, which came to be passed at the instance of the plaintiff, this
Court is of the view that the only issue that may be considered in this
appeal is, whether the partial termination of the agreement by the
defendants 2 and 3 vide order dated 16.12.1999, is legally valid and if it
is not so, for what relief, the plaintiff is entitled to ?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 8/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
15. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on
record.
16. The prayer in the plaint itself is for a declaration that the order
passed by the third defendant in his proceedings No.6870/97/98/JD,
partially determining the agreement as illegal and void and consequently
claimed a sum of Rs.3,30,40,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from
the defendants.
17. As mentioned above, the trial court has framed as many as
eight issues and decreed the suit. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in issue No.5, the suit was held to be within the period of limitation. In
issue No.6, it has been decided that the suit dispute is not referable to
arbitration. With reference to issue No.4 as to whether notice under
Section 80 CPC is contemplated, which is also answered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court holding that Section 80 notice is not mandatory. So far as
issue No.7 is concerned, which was framed for the maintainability of the
suit with respect to the claim of damages was also in the affirmative in
favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the only question that has to be
determined is the partial termination of the agreement by the defendants
2 and 3, whether legally valid and sustainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 9/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
18. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants/defendants would contend that, it is incorrect to state that
only because of the delay in providing Profile Corrective Course
(hereinafter referred to as PCC), the work could not be commenced. As
per the contract, the work involved more than 21 items, involving earth
work excavation, embankment, laying sand gravel mix, laying water
bound Macadam, grade I, II, III, applying primer coat, laying tack coat,
laying compact thick bituminous Macadam, laying semi dense bituminous
concrete laying open grade premix carpet, laying seal coat laying gravel
over the berms etc. After all the above works, PCC, is item No.21 as per
the agreement Ex.A1. The PCC will be provided to bring the pavement
surface to proper camber and to the required super elevation on curve
portions and the said provision will be given, as per clause 501 of MOST
(Ministry of Surface Transport) Specifications II Revision . Even as per
the agreement, the quantity of the PCC was not assessed due to time
factor. The same will be assessed before the commencement of the work
by taking cross section levels, closer intervals and the same will be
approved.
19. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted that
unless and until the PCC is completed by the defendants, the plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 10/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
cannot carry out the work as per the tender agreement. Though it was
argued by the defendants that the PCC was provided for about 18 Kms,
on 29.10.1998, 08.02.1999 and 18.05.1999, for the remaining 6 Kms,
PCC was given on 15.11.1999 and 24.11.1999. Only in October 1998,
the defendants had accorded the PCC. It is relevant to point out that the
tender agreement was executed on 15.10.1997 and the work should be
completed within 18 months from the date of site being handed over to
the plaintiff by the defendants. The site was handed over to the plaintiff
on 20.10.1997. Admittedly, PCC was accorded to the plaintiff on
29.10.1998, as per Ex.B7. Ex.B7 dated 29.10.1998 pertains to approval
of PCC only for 4 Kms out of the total length of 22 Kms. The subsequent
PCC approvals were given on various stages as per Exs.B8 to B11 dated
08.02.1999, 18.05.1999, 15.11.1999 and 24.11.1999. From the above,
it is evident that PCC approval was not accorded by the
appellants/defendants to the plaintiff/respondent for the entire stretch of
22 Kms at one stroke, but was given in a phased manner. It is also
incorrect to state that PCC was listed as item No.21 in the agreement
and therefore, the plaintiff could have proceeded with the rest of the
works, as without PCC, the rest of the works cannot be commenced. A
perusal of Exs.B7 to B11, would go to show that except for a stretch of 8
Kms, the PCC approval for remaining work was accorded to the plaintiff
only after the expiry of 18 months and only 2 Kms of the total extent of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 11/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
the road was laid by the plaintiff because of the inordinate delay on the
part of the defendants in according PCC approval.
20. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also pointed out that
despite the piecemeal accord of PCC approval given by the defendants,
the plaintiff was able to complete the job of nearly 22 Kms as and when
PCC approval was given to him.
21. As per Ex.A3 dated 16.12.1999, the third defendant in his
proceedings has mentioned that the site was handed over to the plaintiff
on 20.10.1997 and the works should have been completed within
18 months from the date of handing over the site, besides keeping up
rate of progress every month. The work should have been completed by
April 1999 in all respects. The plaintiff having failed to keep the rate of
progress and to complete the work, was given several reminders and
notices. As there was no substantial progress, it was construed that the
plaintiff has no intention to complete the work and hence the contract
was partially determined and it was ordered to execute the balance work
as well as ratification of the work left over by the plaintiff. Thereafter, as
per Ex.A4 dated 29.12.1999, the plaintiff was given extension of time
upto 31.01.2000 to complete the items of work furnished in Schedule 'A',
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 12/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
which would be communicated separately. Once again, on 11.01.2000,
the contract was partially determined with reference to clause No.109-06
of PS to SSRB. On the same day, the third defendant had sent a
communication under Ex.B20 informing the plaintiff that the description
of the items of work as per Schedule 'A' alone should have to be
completed within 15 days. The balance items of work as per Schedule 'B'
is ordered to be executed through several agencies at the risk of the
plaintiff. The Schedules 'A' and 'B' description of work was also
communicated to the plaintiff.
22. Prior to extension as per Ex.B20, there were several reminders
sent to the plaintiff as per Ex.B5 series cautioning him to complete the
work and also imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- and 5,000/- respectively. In
response to the same, the plaintiff, had sent a letter, which was marked
as Ex.B6, admitting that the work could not be commenced within the
agreed date and had given a schedule for completing the balance work.
It was specifically pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader
that in Ex.B6 communication, there was no whisper about the non-
furnishing of the PCC as had been complained by the plaintiff. Once again
a communication was sent by the third appellant/defendant under Ex.B12
dated 16.06.1999, wherein, it was specifically pointed out that there was
not even 10% of the work completed and the time for completion of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 13/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
work was extended till 30.06.1999, failing which a fine of Rs.1,000/- for
each day will be imposed. It would be pertinent to point out that the
appellants/defendants have imposed fines and given warnings. However,
in view of the subsequent extension of time till 30.06.1999, the previous
acts are deemed to have been condoned by the appellants.
23. Now the only challenge is to Ex.B16 dated 16.12.1999, which
has determined the contract partially. It has been repeatedly pointed out
by the learned Special Government Pleader for the appellants/defendants
that for the entire stretch of 18 Kms PCC was given in the month of May
1999 itself and the PCC is only the 21st item out of the 24 works to be
completed by the plaintiff. Several extensions have been given to the
plaintiff for completion of the work. Therefore, he argued that the
termination is not unilateral. On the other hand, the trial court has given
a specific finding that the plaintiff is not the sole cause for the delay
based on the evidence of DW1. The relevant portion of the evidence of
DW1, in vernacular, reads thus:
"g[ug;igy; fuf;ot; nfhh;!; mjhtJ rhiyapy;
jd;ikia rPh; bra;jy;. g[ug;igy; fuf;ot; nfhh;!;go
Jiw K:yk; eph;zak; bra;ag;gLfpwJ/ mjw;fhd
mst[fs;. xg;g[jy; bgWtJ Jiw K:yk; eph;zak;
bra;ag;gLfpwJ/ mjw;fhd mst[fs;. xg;g[jy; bgWtJ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 14/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
Jiw K:yk; bra;ag;glntz;Lk; xg;gjy; bgw;w
xg;ge;jf;fhuUf;F bfhLj;j gpd; mth; me;j
mst[g;goa[k;. ntiy bra;a ntz;Lk;/ ePs kl;lk;
vd;why;. rhiyapDila bel;Ltrk;. fpuh!;brf;!d;
vd;why; FWf;F trk;. rhiyapd; ikag;nkhL. nfk;g!;.
R{g;gh; vdpnkrd; vd;gJ rhiyapd; tist[ gFjpfspy;
me;j tist[fSf;Fj; jFe;jthW xU gFjpia
cah;j;JtJ nky;go ntiyfis vy;yhk; bra;a
ntz;Lk; vd;why; gp/rp/rp/ xg;g[jy; fpilj;j gpd;dh;jhd;
ntiyfis bra;a Koa[k;/ ,e;j xg;ge;jj;jpd; vd;d
ntiy bra;a ntz;Lk; vd;W bfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/
Mdhy; gp/rp/rp/ rk;ge;jg;gl;l xg;g[jy; vd;gJ xg;ge;jk;
nghlg;gl;l gpd;dh; ntiy jsj;jpy; xg;ge;jf;fhuhplk;
xg;gilf;fg;gl;l gpwF nkw;bfhs;s ntz;oa gzp MFk;/
gp/rp/rp/ rk;ge;jg;gl;l xg;g[jy; vd;gJ xg;ge;jk; nghlg;gl;l
gpd;dh; ntiy jsj;jpy; xg;ge;jf;fhuhplk;
xg;gilf;fg;gl;l gpwF bgw;Wf;bfhs;s ntz;oa gzp
MFk;/ gp/rp/rp/ rk;ge;jg;gl;l mst[fis xg;ge;jj;jpy;
bfhLg;gjw;F nghjpa mtfhrk; ,y;yhjjhy; mitfis
xg;ge;jj;jpw;F gpd;g[ gzpia bjhl';Ftjw;F
Kd;g[ tH';fg;gLk; vd xg;ge;jj;jpy; Twg;gl;Ls;sJ/
xg;ge;j ruj;Jf;fs; go gp/rp/rp/ mst[fis gzpia
bjhl';Ftjw;F Kd;g[ bfhLf;fg;gl;ljh vd;why; mJ
gw;wp vdf;F bjhpahJ/ 29/10/98 17/910 fp/kP/ Kjy; 22-0
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 15/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
tiuapYk; 8/2/99y; 22-0 Kjy; 26-0 tiu 18/9/99y; 26-0
Kjy; 36-0 fp/kP tiu btt;ntW njjpfspy;
bfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ xg;ge;j ruj;Jg;go gp/rp/rp
rk;ge;jg;gl;l mst[fis thjpf;F xnu jtizahf
bfhLf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd; xg;ge;j fhyk;
Koe;j gpwnf Jiwapdh; gp/rp/rp/ mst[fis
bfhLj;Js;sdh;/ gp/rp/rp/ mst[fs; ,y;iy vd;why;
ve;jtpjkhd gzpa[k; bra;a KoahJ/ "
24. From the evidence of DW1, it is clearly seen that the
appellants/defendants have delayed the execution of the work by the
plaintiff at each and every stage and that they have conveniently shifted
the blame on the plaintiff, which this court does not appreciate. Hence
the respondents/plaintiff/cross-appellants are entitled to the balance
payment of the work done by him, which according to the plaintiff comes
to Rs.97,67,951/-.
25. As per the defendants, from the date of handing over of the
site from 30.10.1997 till the date of determination of the contract,
namely 16.12.1999, the plaintiff had done the work only less than 25%,
though he ought to have completed the work on or before 19.04.1999,
including the extensions given on three times.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 16/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
26. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, who has filed
the Cross Objection pointedly argued that there is no mentioning about
the splitting up of work as 'A' and 'B' schedules in the original agreement.
It was done by the defendants on their own after the award of the
contract, which itself is unjust and unreasonable. It is also pointed out
that when the agreement was terminated on 16.12.1999, the seven days
notice as contemplated, was not given to the plaintiff. In the termination
order, the EMD, FSD and the withheld amount are ordered to be credited
to the revenue account.
27. So far as the deposits with the defendants are concerned, the
amount returnable to the plaintiff is the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of
Rs.1,79,000/- and Further Security Deposit (FSD) of Rs.3,36,000/-,
totalling to Rs.5,15,000/-. The learned counsel for the cross-
appellants/plaintiff, points out that the EMD has to be returned in double,
as it was a deposit made by the plaintiff by way of Indra Vikas Patra
(IVP) bond. The maturity period of which was 5-1/2 years, in which time
it gets doubled. Therefore, it was prayed that another sum of
Rs.1,79,000/- has to be added with Rs.5,15,000/-.
28. In this regard, DW1 in his evidence also has stated that, it is
not true to say that EMD and FSD are not recoverable, if the contract is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 17/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
partly terminated. His evidence in vernacular, reads thus:
"KGikahd xg;ge;jj;ij uj;J
bra;ak
[ ;bghGJ ,/vk;/o/ kw;Wk; vg;/v!;/o/ bjhifia
rhp bra;a Koa[k; vdt[k;. xg;ge;jj;ij gFjpahf
uj;J bra;ak
[ ;nghJ me;j bjhifia bgw KoahJ
vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/ "
29. It is to be seen that the plaintiff is entitled to the refund of the
EMD as admitted by DW1. The EMD was given in the form of IVP, which
carries interest and doubles at the end of five years and six months.
Presuming that the deposit was made in the year 1997, after the passage
of more than two decades, it has to be seen whether the IVP has been
renewed or reinvested. Even if it is not reinvested, the plaintiff would be
entitled for at least the maturity value. Therefore, he is entitled to a sum
of Rs.3,58,000/- [Rs.1,79,000 + Rs.1,79,000] towards EMD.
30. The plaintiff has demanded cost of escalation at the rate of
15% to 20% from 1999 to 2000 as the rates detailed in the tender
notification will be applicable only for the year in which the tender was
called for. Admittedly, in this case, the PCC itself was given only at the
end of 1999 and there would certainly be escalation of price if not at the
rate claimed by the plaintiff. It is also to be noted that in the Articles of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 18/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
Agreement, there is no specific clause as to the escalation of price
though in commercial practice the same is as agreeable by both the
parties. In fact, it is the evidence of PW2, who retired as the Chief
Engineer from the Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu,
that the agreed rate is payable only till the date of contract period.
Though normally for a contract of the length of 18 months, the escalation
is not payable, in this case contract was extended till 31.01.2000 and
later partially terminated. Hence the plaintiff is certainly be entitled for
the price escalation for the work completed till then. Therefore, the trial
court had given an escalation of 6% on 97,67,951/- which according to
us, is correct, in the absence of any concrete evidence to show the
accurate rate of escalation.
31. The trial court, has correctly arrived at the damages for the
loss of profit to the plaintiff at the rate of 6%, and the same does not
warrant any interference by this court. The damages worked out to the
tune of Rs.12,49,658/- is confirmed. Accordingly, the issue is answered
in favour of the plaintiff.
32. As far as the interest of 18% per annum claimed by the
respondents/cross-appellants is concerned, the same is on the higher
side. Considering the pandemic situation and the financial crunch being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 19/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
faced by the State, the respondents/cross-appellants are entitled to
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of plaint, till
realisation.
33. For better understanding, the amounts to which the
respondents/plaintiffs/cross-appellants, are entitled is as follows:
Work done amount due : Rs. 97,67,951/-
Escalation in cost of materials,
machinery and labour @ 6% on
Rs.97,67,951/- : Rs. 5,86,077/-
EMD (IVP) (Rs.1.79 Lakhs +
Rs.1.79 Lakhs) : Rs. 3,58,000/-
FSD : Rs. 3,36,000/-
Damages for loss of profit : Rs. 12,49,658/-
---------------------
Total amount due to the : Rs.1,22,97,686/-
respondents/cross-appellants ---------------------
34. In the result, the Appeal Suit filed by the State, is dismissed.
The cross-appeal filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, is partly allowed.
The respondents/plaintiff/cross-appellants are entitled to a sum of
Rs.1,22,97,686/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of plaint, till realisation. However, there is no order as to costs.
Connected M.Ps., are closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 20/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
[P.S.N., J.] [S.K., J.]
.05.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
gg/Asr
To
1. The Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court, Virudhunagar.
2. The District Collector,
Virudhunagar.
3. The Superintending Engineer,
National Highways, Tirunelveli.
4. The Divisional Engineer,
National Highways, Virudhunagar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 21/22
A.S.(MD)No.141/2007 &
Cross. Appeal (MD)No.56/2009
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
AND
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
gg/Asr
A.S.(MD)No.141 of 2007 &
Cross Appeal (MD)No.56 of 2009
26.05.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 22/22
