AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nirmal Singh, J.—This is plaintiff's First Appeal against the judgment and decree of learned 1st. Additional District Judge, Jammu dated
7.4.2003, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 95,000 has been dismissed.
Relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff is the sole proprietor of Anu Steel Industries, near Ved Mandir, Jammu which
manufactures steel furniture, steel trunks, steel almirahs, steel benches, etc. Defendant No. 3 invited a tender notice No. DES/Acctt/15799-999
dated 24.9.1992 for the supply of various items of furniture. In pursuance of which the plaintiff submitted the tender along with the samples of the
items which were required to be supplied. The defendant No. 3 accepted the offer of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, accordingly, started manufacturing
the items of steel furniture which were to be supplied to defendant No. 3 in his factory and spent huge money but the defendant No. 3 did not
accept the supply of the items of steel furniture from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has pleaded that he has suffered a loss of Rs. 95,000 due to violation
of the contract, hence, the suit was filed.
Defendants contested the suit and it was pleaded by them that the defendants have neither entered into any agreement nor the plaintiff deposited
the required security of Rs. 20,000 within the prescribed period of ten days and the samples which the plaintiff produced were not approved. It
was further pleaded that the offer of the plaintiff was conditional, subject to the condition that plaintiff shall execute requisite agreement with the
defendants after pledging a security deposit of Rs. 20,000 with the defendant No. 3 which he has not done.
The learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu framed the following issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff fulfilled all the requirements of tender notice as stated in the plaint?
-OPP
(2) Whether the samples of furniture submitted by the plaintiff was duly approved by the defendants ?
-OPP
(3) Whether a valid contract between the parties stood constituted?
-OPP
(4) If issue No. 3 is not proved in affirmative whether the plaintiff failed to execute the requisite agreement with the defendant after pledging an
S.D. of Rs. 20,000 with defendant No. 3 and if so, what is its effect ?
-OPP
(5) Whether the plaintiff was given the supply orders by various education institutions under the control of defendants and if so whether the plaintiff
started the manufacturing of trunks, etc. formaking supplies to defendants?
-OPP
(6) Whether the plaintiff manufactured the trunks as per the supply orders of defendants as per their specification and the defendants despite the
knowledge of such manufacturer deleted the items of trunks without justification for making supplies to defendants and thereby plaintiff sustained
financial loss to the tune of Rs. 95000/-?
-OPP
(7) If issue No. 6 is proved in affirmative whether the plaintiff is entitled to any compensation from defendants if so, at what amount?
-OPP
(8) Whether notice u/s 80 CPC is not according to law, if so, what is its effect?
-OPP
(9) Relief.
The learned 1 st. Additional District Judge, Jammu, after recording the evidence of the parties, decided all the issues against the plaintiff and
dismissed the suit.
After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and pursuing the record, I am of the considered opinion that the learned 1st.
Additional District Judge, Jammu has not committed any legal error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
It is admitted case of the parties that defendant No. 3 accepted the tender on 10.2.1993 in pursuance of the tender notice dated 24.9.1992.
The appellant-plaintiff gave his offer and the Divisional Level Purchase Committee accepted the offer of the plaintiff in respect of the items
mentioned in the annexures enclosed for the approved samples, vide letter dated written to the plaintiff but this was subject to the fulfilment of the
condition that the appellant-plaintiff was required to execute an agreement deed with the Convener within a period of 10 days along with a security
of 5% of the anticipated supply not exceeding Rs. 20,000 as required under NIT clauses. The plaintiff has not produced any documentary
evidence which shows that the plaintiff executed the agreement deed with the Convener and also deposited Rs. 20,000 as security. When there is
no privity of contract between the parties, then there is no question of any loss suffered by the plaintiff,
If the appellant-plaintiff has manufactured the furniture, the same has been manufactured at his own, therefore, the finding recorded by the
learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jammu is neither perverse nor it can be said that the same is recorded in the absence of any evidence.
Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.