STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PANNALAL KANBYALAL DESRAJ JAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will also govern First Appeals Nos. 106 of 1952 and 107 of 1952.

(2.) THESE three appeals arise out of the decrees passed in three suits instituted by the respondent No. 1 Pannalal Desraj against the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, Shri G. K. Tiwari, who was Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, at the relevant time, and also against certain other parlies. In all these suits the claim of the respondent No. 1 was for damages for breach of certain contracts entered into by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, with him. In the suit out of which First Appeal No. 105 of 1952 arises, the contract was for making certain extensions in the Bai Gangabai Memorial Hospital at Gondia. In the suit out of which First Appeal No. 108 of 1952 arises, the contract was for remodelling the Kunwar Tilaksingh Civil Hospital, Gondia. In the suit out of which First Appeal No. 107 of 1952 arises, the contract was for the construction of a new Hospital to be known as Twynam Hospital, Tumsar.

(3.) VARIOUS defences were raised by the appellant and the various defendants to the suits on the basis of which each defendant disputed his liability. The trial Court dismissed the suits against all the defendants except the present appellant, the State of Madhya Pradesh, which is now represented before us by virtue of the provisions of the States Reorganization Act by the State of Bombay. The main contention raised on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh was that none of the contracts entered into by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, was binding on it because the Deputy Commissioner was not authorised to enter into those contracts. This defence as well as some other defences raised on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh were negatived by the learned trial Judge and the suits were decreed against the State of Madhya Pradesh alone. In the appeals various grounds have been taken on behalf of the appellant but we need not concern ourselves with all those grounds except the one to which we have already adverted, that is that none of the contracts was entered into on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh and as such the State, of Madhya Pradesh was not bound by any of the contracts.