LAWS(GJH)-2012-8-217

STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. NARENDRA R PATEL

Decided On August 30, 2012
STATE OF GUJARAT Appellant
V/S
NARENDRA R PATEL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["the Code" for short] is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Bharuch in Special Civil Suit No. 150 of 1991 whereby the respondent is held entitled to recover Rs.16,88,812.00 from the appellants.

(2.) THE facts which are noticed from the record of the case are stated as under: The respondent was awarded public contract for work of Minor and Sub Minor of Narwadi Distributory from Ch. 0 to 4050 Mtrs. Of Choadway Irrigation Scheme. As per the agreement, the work was to commence from 10.4.1986and to be completed within eight months i.e. on or before 9.12.1986. The tender was accepted for Rs. 6,46,082.82. It appears that since the dispute had arisen between the parties, the respondent had issued notice for appointment of arbitrator to the appellants under clause 30 of the Agreement and subsequently filed suit under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for appointment of arbitrator. The suit was allowed and the order for appointment of arbitrator was passed which was challenged by the respondent by filing appeal before this court. The respondent therefore filed the above referred Special Civil Suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Bharuch for recovery of Rs.28,89,000.00 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the appellants. The suit was filed by the respondent mainly on the ground that the appellant did not make available the line out for work, that the canal line was passing through various ground level; that the canal land was not acquired by the department and was also not acquired at the time of acceptance of tender. That the appellant had failed to provide drawings and designs of the work contract to the respondent. That the respondent was not handed over possession of the land for carrying out the work.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the original defendants appellants herein by filing written statement at Exh. 61.