SPIC SMO Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is settled principle of law that the procedural law cannot fail to provide relief when substantive law gives the right. The Principle hidden under this verbal texture is - there cannot be any wrong without a remedy. In M.V.Elisabeth and others. vs. Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd., [1993 Supp.(2) SCC 433], the apex court has observed that where substantive law demands justice for the party aggrieved and the statute has not provided the remedy, it is the duty of the court to devise procedure by drawing analogy from other systems of law and practice.

(2.) THE apex court in Dhanna Lal vs. Kalawatibai and others, [(2002)6 SCC 16], has also envisaged the similar proposition that wrong must not be left un-redeemed and right not left unenforced.

(3.) IN the given suit, the defence of the defendant electricity Board hinges around the issue of liquidated damages. It has therefore become imperative on the part of this court to have reference to Chapter VI of the Indian Contract Act 1872. This chapter encompasses, the compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract and compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated for. With regard to this subject Sections 73 and 74 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter it may be referred to as 'Act') are very much relevant.