9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Financing of the contract by the plaintiffs. 2. Charge on the assets and profits of the business. 3. Commencement order of the work. 4. Validity of the commencement order before the contract date. 5. Forfeiture of the security deposit. 6. Default in carrying out the contract. 7. Appropriation of the security deposit towards dues not arising from the contract. 8. Deduction of rent by the Government. 9. Handing over machinery to another contractor. 10. Compensation for wrongful use of machinery. 11. Value of stores taken over by the Government. 12. Value of machinery, plant, and buildings taken over. 13. Entitlement to compensation for machinery and stores. 14. Amount of damages entitled to the plaintiffs. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Financing of the Contract The court found that plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 had invested approximately Rs. 3,28,000, and plaintiffs Nos. 6 and 7 had invested Rs. 45,000, totaling Rs. 3,73,000. This finding was uncontested. Issue 2: Charge on Assets and Profits The court decided against the plaintiffs, stating that the rights reserved under the partnership agreement were not operative against the Government. The plaintiffs' charge would only become operative after meeting all liabilities, including those to the Government. Issues 3 & 4: Commencement Order of the Work The court found that the seizure was contrary to the terms of the contract. The date of commencement was not fixed or communicated to the contractor, and the arbitrary fixing of 19th April 1948 as the commencement date was unjustified. The contractor had not violated the contract terms, and the rescission of the contract was illegal. Issue 5: Forfeiture of the Security Deposit The court held that the forfeiture of the security deposit was unjustified as the contractor had not defaulted. The Government's actions were found to be arbitrary and without basis, but the plaintiffs could not contest this due to the lack of privity of contract. Issue 6: Default in Carrying Out the Contract The contractor did not default, and the breach was on the Government's side. However, the plaintiffs could not seek relief due to their lack of privity with the contract. Issues 7 & 8: Appropriation of Security Deposit and Deduction of Rent No findings were given on the merits as the plaintiffs were considered outsiders to the contract. Issue 9: Handing Over Machinery to Another Contractor The machinery was handed over to other contractors, including Rai Bahadur Jodha Mal, for unrelated contracts. The trial court held that compensation for wrongful use was payable to the contractor, not the plaintiffs. Issue 10: Compensation for Wrongful Use of Machinery The plaintiffs could not agitate the quantum of compensation due to their lack of privity with the contract. Issue 11: Value of Stores Taken Over The court found the value of the stores taken over by the Government to be approximately Rs. 94,000, not Rs. 1,47,000 as claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' valuation was based on higher market rates, which the court did not fully accept. Issue 12: Value of Machinery, Plant, and Buildings The court accepted the plaintiffs' valuation of Rs. 90,977-3-0 for machinery, plant, and buildings, as it was supported by account books and vouchers. Issues 13 & 14: Entitlement to Compensation and Damages The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to relief on the ground of tortious conversion. The Government's actions were wrongful, and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover damages for the wrongful conversion of their property. Relief Granted: 1. The plaintiffs were awarded Rs. 50,686-13-0 for the price of stores supplied and accepted. 2. An additional Rs. 12,500 was awarded for use and deterioration of tools, plant, and machinery, and interest on capital. 3. Compensation of Rs. 1,47,730-12-0 for the value of stores and timber removed by the Government. 4. Damages of Rs. 90,977-3-0 for machinery, plant, and buildings taken over by the Government, contingent on payment of court fees on this amount. 5. The total decree amounted to Rs. 2,97,694-12-0 with proportionate costs. The plaintiffs' suit was decreed in their favor, recognizing their entitlement to compensation for the wrongful actions of the Government, despite the lack of privity of contract.
|
