SUPATO DEVI AND ORS. Vs. UDYAMI AWASIYA SAHKARI LOHANCHAL COMPLEX SAMITY LIMITED AND ORS.
LAWS(JHAR)-2015-11-5
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on November 03,2015

Supato Devi And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Udyami Awasiya Sahkari Lohanchal Complex Samity Limited And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 12th June, 2002 and decree dated 24th June, 2002, passed and signed by learned Sub Judge-I, Bokaro, in connection with Money Suit No.6 of 2001, whereby learned Sub Judge has dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff is barred by Law of Limitation and further on the ground that the plaintiff has not invoked Clause 18 of the Contract (Exhibit-6), which suggests the parties to refer the matter to an Arbitrator for redressal of grievance, if any.
(2.) As per the plaint, the plaintiff was a civil contractor, having his office at Kurmidih, within Balidih Police Station, District Bokaro and Defendant No.1 is a Society, duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1935 in the name and style of Udyami Awasiya Sahakari Lohanchal Complex Samiti Limited, Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Society'). Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the elected President and Secretary of the Society.
(3.) It is disclosed that in pursuance of Tender Notice No.VASLCSL/TENDER/92-93/26 dated 10th November, 2012, the plaintiff was allotted construction work of road, drainage and culverts, valued at Rs.34,89,350.26 and, accordingly, a contract agreement was signed by and between the plaintiff and defendants. In view of the work order given to the plaintiff, he had started required construction work for the Society and worked till the year 1995 to the satisfaction of the Society for Rs.23,61,872.70. It is further stated that payment up to 12th running bill for Rs.19,69,523.74 was received by the plaintiff after deduction of 10% amount towards security deposit from running bill as per the agreement and 2% towards TDS. When the contract work was going on, power of the office bearers given by the Society was seized and management of the Society was taken over by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Sri Yogeshwar Prasad, the then Director, Accounts Administrator, was appointed as Administrator and after his transfer the post remained vacant and due to that contract work of the Society got hampered. Thereafter, Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chas was appointed as temporary Administrator of Defendant No.1. The contract given to the plaintiff was never terminated, but the Administrator of the Society appointed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, stopped the work given to the plaintiff without valid reason and payment against the work done was also withheld. Further averment made by the plaintiff is that after long chase, a sum of Rs.20,000/- as ad hoc payment was made to him in the month of January, 1999. General election of the office bearer of the Society was held in the month of October, 2001 after which Defendant Nos.2 and 3 were elected as President and Secretary of the Society, respectively.;


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