Decided on November 18,2003



S. SANKARASUBBAN, J. - (1.) A.S. No. 12 of 1991 is filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 126 of 1987 of the Sub Court, Tellicherry, while R.F.A. No. 125 of 2003 is filed against the judgment and decree by the plaintiff in the suit. The facts of the case are as follows :
(2.) In 1976, the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter called as 'Corporation') invited offers from the parties interested in constructing godowns in their land and rent it to the Corporation on reasonable rates. In response to the invitation, Susheela, Managing Partner of M/s. Anupama Warehousing Establishment, expressed her willingness to consider the offer. Thereafter, the District Manager of the defendant informed her to approach a Nationalised Bank for getting sufficient advance for the construction of godowns for the Corporation. It is also informed that the defendant would recommend the application if routed through them. On 20-10-1976 Susheela wrote a letter to the District. Manager stating that she was interested in the proposal and that she intended to form a Partnership for the purpose of raising funds to construct the godown. Thereafter, through plaintiff Partnership Firm was constituted with Susheela as the Managing Partner. On 21-5-1977, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant. It was later cancelled and a new agreement was executed on 4-6-1977. As per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff had to construct one godown of 5000 M.T.'s capacity at Pilicode, for the use of the defendant. It was agreed that after the construction, the plaintiff would lease the godown for a period of five years at the rate of 36 paise per sq. foot per month. There was a provision that the godown should be made ready for occupation within four months of the execution of the agreement.
(3.) The construction had started even before the execution of the agreement. The property was purchased after the site approval of the officer of the defendant - Corporation. Under the terms of the agreement, it was made clear that the construction would be completed only by the grant of loan from Banks and that the defendant would be willing to recommend such applications to the Banks concerned. As per the terms of the agreement, the building had to be constructed under the supervision of the Corporation and the building was meant only for their use. Several difficulties cropped up during the progress of the construction. The cement was a material essential for the progress of the work. Though originally a time was fixed for the completion of the construction, it was never considered to be the essence of the contract. The Authorities were fully aware that time factor was inconsequential. As a matter of fact, the time was extended from time to time at least on 8 occasions. All the building materials were in short supply. So, the plaintiff cannot be in any way held responsible for the delay. Alternations, additions and modifications suggested by the defendant also have contributed for the delay. The period under the contract was extended by the defendant from time to time up to 31-7-1979. But in the meanwhile, the defendant wrote a letter dated 15-12-1979 by which the defendant informed the plaintiff that the proposal is not alive. The stand taken by the defendant is illegal and unjustifiable.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.