Menu Close

HIND CONSTRUCTION V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

PARTIES

PLAINTIFF- Hind constructor Co.

DEFANDEANT –  State of Maharashtra

FACT IN HIND CONSTRUCTION V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

In this case, a contractor takes a contract for making the bank canal near a landi river near Nasik value of Rs. 107000 from the state of Maharashtra, a defendant in the contract, after the former contract was excepted on  17-06-1995, and the contractor said that he started the work on 05-07-1995. 

It is mentioned in the contract that the starting date is 05-07-1995. So the contract is for one year which is 12 months, now the contractor finishes the work before the due date which is 04-07-1996.

Now it seems that the contractor does not complete the work in the given time. With the effect on 16-08-1995, the contractor resent the contract after serving the notice under section 80 of the civil procedure code. On 28-08-1995, the court of the joint civil judge made a claim of 65000 against the defendant allegation for the wrongful recession of the contract. 

The plaintiff said the government does not tell about the position of the disaster and monsoon in that area. Several days of work we lost in that area due to heavy rainfall.

now the defendant said that the time was not the essence of the contract, time was fixed is real, not nominal, and the 12 months is set, that there was no excuse from July to November for not doing any work.

ISSUE 

Whether the time is essence is taken in this contract or not.

See also  Superintendence Company v. Krishan Murgai

JUDGEMENT

firstly the case was run in the trial court first with the two appeals and the court dismissed the first appeal and allowed the second appeal.

Then both, the parties are appealed to the high court and the court decide that,

As the result, we allow the app l, a set aside the common judgment and decree in F.A. No. 844 of 1961 passed by the High Court and restore that of the trial court. The appellant-plaintiff will get costs of this appeal as also costs of F.A. No. 844 of 1961. The High Court’s decree dismissing F.A. No. 245 of 1962 is confirmed.  

Edited by Megha Jain.

Author/Editor

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Volume 1 Issue 4

Holler Box

Join the fastest-growing community!

It's not been a year yet, but we are glad that the students have accepted us and supported us!

More than 2000 students have already been a part of the Legal Lock community!

What are you looking for?

Click here to join now!

  
Holler Box