STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. V J KUDALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff No.1 is the State of Maharashtra and plaintiff No.2 is the Executive Engineer of the Multi-storeyed Building, Construction Division of the Govt. of Maharashtra. They have filed the present suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.2,62,500/- alongwith interest @18% per annum and for costs as set out in the prayer clauses.

(2.) Brief facts of this case are as under :-

(3.) Defendant No.1 is a sculptor and the plaintiffs intended to install in the new Council Hall, a statue that of one farmer and his family. The plaintiffs had negotiations with the defendant and by Agreement dated 16.11.1981 at "Exh.P-1", it was resolved that defendant would prepare a statue as per the requirements of the plaintiffs. The total consideration payable was Rs.1,87,500 and 20% of the consideration was to be paid to the defendant on signing the contract and placing the firm order. That was done by the plaintiffs that is to say, a sum of Rs.37,500/- was paid to the defendant. On 17.11.1981, the schedule of payment came to be revised on 16.3.1984 at "Exh.P-2". The defendant had signed the documents, namely, "Exh.P-1" dated 16.11.1981 and "Exh.P-2" dated 16.3.1984. The 50% of the total consideration, namely, Rs.93,750/- came to be paid to the defendant on 27.3.1984. Accordingly, the plaintiffs paid to the defendant in all a sum of Rs.1,31,250/-. The plaintiffs called upon the defendant to comply with the terms of the Agreement that is to say prepare a statue. Ultimately, the plaintiffs by their letter dated 3.6.1986 at "Exh.P-4" demanded a sum of Rs.1,31,250/- being the amount paid to the defendant and Rs.1,31,250/- being the amount towards the damages. The defendant demanded an additional sum of Rs.60,000/- by way of letter dated 25.9.1984 and the plaintiffs granted the said demand by letter dated 24.6.1987 at "Exh.P-5". Despite this, the defendant did not complete the job and the defendant by his letter dated 14.6.1988 demanded an additional amount of Rs.30,000/- which demand was rejected by the Govt. of Maharashtra by their reply dated 1.7.1988 at "Exh.P-9".