STATE OF GOA, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, HAVING OFFICE AT SECRETARIAT, PORVORIM, GOA Vs. SNEHA CONSTRUCTIONS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State challenging the Judgment and order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the District Judge-II, North Goa, Panaji, pursuant to which the learned Judge partly allowed the suit filed by the respondent and directed the appellant to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs. 43, 03, 412.92 alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 17.04.2003.

(2.) In the brief facts of the case, tenders were invited by the State for the work of improvement and drainage system at main nullah at Naikvadda in the Village Panchayat of Mandrem and the tender was ordered to the respondents at the cost of Rs. 19, 85, 115/-. The time for completion of the work was 150 days. The respondents have filed the suit for declaration and recovery of money against them claiming that due to delay, the variations and hindrances caused by the appellants, there was a breach of the condition of the contract and the work could not be completed in time. The appellant however raised a plea that the suit was barred by limitation and that the respondents have not carried out the work in a planned manner causing delay followed by a show cause notice to show cause why the contract should not be terminated for the delay. Nonetheless, the learned District Judge partly allowed the suit and held the appellants liable to pay Rs. 43, 03, 4192 and directed them to pay the said amount with interest at 15% per annum.

(3.) The appellants felt aggrieved and assailed the judgment and order on the ground that it was contrary to law, passed without considering the documents and evidence on record. The learned District Judge had erred in holding that the suit was not barred by the law of limitation and it ought to have appreciated that the contract came to end on 31.05.2002 and no suit could have been filed for recovery of money after three years from the time when the amount claimed became due. The learned District Judge erred in awarding the claim of the respondents based on the books produced by them. The learned District Judge did not appreciate that no reliance could be placed on the said measurement book since it was not signed by the appellants as required. The learned District Judge erred in awarding the claim no.6 to the respondents on account of loss of profit and business opportunity to them and awarded the same on the basis of conjunctures and surmises and in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the same.