9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Breach of contract by Rungta, Claim for damages, Payment disputes, Responsibility for contract breach, Interest calculation. Breach of Contract by Rungta: The case involved two appeals filed by Mahabir Prashad Rungta against a judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioner's Court. The dispute arose from an agreement between Rungta and Durga Datt for coal transportation. Rungta claimed Durga Datt breached the contract by stopping work, while Durga Datt alleged Rungta's breach led to work stoppage. The trial Judge initially ruled in favor of Rungta, but the Judicial Commissioner reversed the decision, holding Rungta responsible for the breach due to non-payment and road maintenance issues. The Supreme Court upheld the Judicial Commissioner's finding, emphasizing Rungta's failure to make timely payments and maintain the road as per the contract clauses. Claim for Damages: Rungta sought damages of Rs. 60,000, including general damages, demurrage, and damages to constituents. Durga Datt claimed Rs. 49,544-12-0, including arrears of bills and interest. The trial Judge decreed damages in favor of both parties, but the Judicial Commissioner modified the amounts based on the breach findings. The Supreme Court analyzed the payment disputes and upheld the modified decree, reducing the amount claimed by Durga Datt for coal transportation based on unclear evidence. Payment Disputes: The disagreement between the parties centered on payment issues, with Rungta withholding substantial amounts over an extended period. Despite arguments on the presentation of bills and waiver of payment, the Supreme Court held that Rungta breached the contract by failing to make full and timely payments to Durga Datt. The Court scrutinized the accounts and highlighted Rungta's withholding of payments, leading to the breach of the agreement. Responsibility for Contract Breach: The key issue was determining the party responsible for the contract breach. The Judicial Commissioner found Rungta at fault for non-payment and road maintenance, leading to work stoppage. The Supreme Court concurred with this finding, emphasizing Rungta's significant role in hindering Durga Datt's work by not fulfilling payment obligations promptly and neglecting road repairs as stipulated in the contract clauses. Interest Calculation: Regarding interest calculation, the Supreme Court addressed the claim for interest as damages, clarifying that interest up to the date of the suit was not claimable. The Court adjusted the rate of interest pendente lite from 6% to 4% per annum. The judgment dismissed the appeals, with a reduction in the decreed amount and interest rate, and ordered the appellant to bear the costs in the Court. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Judicial Commissioner's findings, emphasizing Rungta's responsibility for the contract breach due to payment defaults and road maintenance issues. The judgment analyzed the payment disputes, contract breach, and interest calculation intricacies, resulting in modifications to the decreed amounts and interest rates.
|
