HIRA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of his claim fur Rs. 51.856/9/ by the. trial court. The respondent-Union of India was the defendant No. 1 in the trial court.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant entered into a contract with the defendant-respondent for the supply of meat on terms and conditions which are embodied in the instructions to Tenders, the tender and the Acceptance of Tender. He deposited Rs. 18,000.00 as security for the performance of contract, the amount being deposited in the savings bank account, the pass book of which was delivered to the defendant respondent. The officer sanctioning the contract could rescind it if the plaintiff were to commit a breach of it and thereupon the amount of security deposit or such portion thereof as the officer sanctioning the contract should consider fit or adequate was to stand forfeited without prejudice to any other remedy that the Government might have against the plaintiff. The officer sanctioning the contract was to be indicated by filling the blank in clause 12 of the instructions to tenderers. The blank was filled by the insertion of the officer as being the Commander 181, Independent Brigade, Group therein. In clause 8 of the Tender, however, the expression "officer sanctioning the contract" was defined to include the following three officers, namely, (a) Sub-area Commander, (b) Area Commander and (c) Q. M. G., Army Headquarters. The Government was also authorised by clause 8 of the Tender in case of rescission of the contract to recover from the plaintiff any extra expenses the Government may be put to in obtaining the supplies which the plaintiff failed to make without prejudice to any other remedy the Government may have against the plaintiff.

(3.) It is not disputed by the plaintiff that he defaulted in making supplies and the Government had to purchase the supplies elsewhere at a higher rate thereby incurring an additional expense of Rs. 33,142/11/. Nevertheless, the plaintiff did not admit his liability for the payment of the amount of Rs. 33,142/11/. Immediately on the failure of the plaintiff to make the supplies, the Government informed the plaintiff on 27th January, 1953 that the contract was rescinded under clause 8 of the Tender and the security deposit of Rs. 18,000.00 was forfeited. The plaintiff was also informed that any extra expense that the Government may be put to in obtaining supplies from alternative sources would also be recovered from the plaintiff. After the completion of the purchases from the alternative sources, the Government informed the plaintiff on 3rd June, 1953 that the amounts of Rs. 16.001/5/ and of Rs. 18.343/7/ making a total of Rs. 34,344/12/ were being recovered from the money due to the plaintiff from the Government on bills for other supplies which the plaintiff had made. Thus the Government purported to recover from the plaintiff the whole of the security deposit of Rs. 18,000.00 as well us Rs. 34.344/12/ though the loss caused to the Government by the failure of the plaintiff to make the supplies amounted only to Rs. 34,344/12/.