KHOPOLI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. RAM MALHARI SABLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (Original Defendants) takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 7th March, 1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, at Panvel in Special Civil Suit No.91 of 1992 wherein the appellants were directed to pay Rs.53,32,411/- to the respondents by way of damages with simple interest at 18 % p.a. From the date of the suit.

(2.) One Ram Sable, predecessor-title of the respondents filed a suit against the appellants for a perpetual injunction and directing them to obey the agreements and resolutions passed from time to time for the construction of a hospital building. In the alternative, a claim was also made for recovery of an amount of Rs.35,65,411/- towards damages. (hereinafter for the sake of convenience Appellants and Respondents are referred to as defendants and plaintiff respectively.) The case of the plaintiff was that the defendants had called for tender for construction of a hospital building. The plaintiff filled in the tender and his tender being the lowest, the work of construction of hospital by a written agreement dated 19th August, 1980 was alloted to him. The period of completion of the construction of the said hospital was 18 months from the date of agreement. The defendants agreed to supply the required quantity of cement bags for the construction of hospital building. The work order in pursuance of agreement was issued on 21st August, 1980. The line out one was given on 12th September, 1980 and actual work of construction started on 15th September, 1980. The plaintiff thereafter, collected the required material for the construction of the building and also obtained loan from the Bank of Maharashtra to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/-. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendants stopped supply of cement and therefore, the work was stopped. The rates of building material was in the meantime enormously increased. The plaintiff did not seek any escalation in the rate of construction for a period of 18 months. However,thereafter demanded higher rate for the construction in view of the escalation of the price of the building material and the defendants in pursuant to the demand of plaintiff passed a resolution bearing No.64 on 22nd July, 1983 and agreed to the escalation in price. The plaintiff continued the construction work from August, 1983 but, on 31st March 1984 the Collector, Raigad stopped the construction work of the building on the basis of a complaint by one of the Councillors of the defendants. The plaintiff again sought for increase in the rate since the building material had become very costly during that period. The defendants passed a resolution bearing No.58 on 25th July 1986 and agreed to increase 25 % above the DSR of 1986. This resolution was again stayed by the Collector of Raigad and the plaintiff was compelled to suspend the construction activities. An appeal was filed against the order of the Collector to the Director of Municipal Administration. However, the same was dismissed and thereafter Revision application was filed before the State of Maharashtra. The State of Maharashtra allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and a direction was given that the plaintiff should complete the construction work as per the rates given in the resolution No.58 dated 25th July, 1986.

(3.) The plaintiff thereafter in pursuance of the order of the government executed a fresh agreement on 16th May 1988. This agreement was subsequently confirmed by defendants by passing Resolution No.51 dated 9th June, 1988. The plaintiff contended that they are ready and willing to complete the construction work as per the agreement dated 16th May 1988. However, officers of the defendants did not allow the plaintiff to commence the work and they worked against their interest. The defendants did not pay the plaintiff adequate money, did not supply cement and did not record the measurement in the measurement book. The plaintiff also averred that had the defendants co-operated, he would have constructed the hospital building in time and would have earned goodwill. However, for the adamant attitude of the officers of the defendants the work could not be completed for a period of 9 years. It was also contended that exorbitant interest was required to be paid for the loan obtained by the plaintiff from the Bank of Maharashtra. An amount of Rs.10,10,000/- was also claimed from the defendants towards running bills. This payment was also delayed by the defendants. The plaintiff ultimately served a notice on 21st August, 1989 and thereafter filed a suit requiring the defendants to obey the agreements and resolutions passed by them from time to time and an injunction restraining their officers, servants and agents from causing obstruction in the construction work. An amount of Rs.10,10,000/- was claimed towards outstanding bills as on 30th September, 1988. By way of damages, the plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs.6,60,000/- for the rent he had to pay for centering and machinery for a period of 11 months at Rs.60,000/- per month, Rs.15,76,818/- towards interest amount which the plaintiff was required to pay to the bank, an amount of Rs.3,13,700/- towards payment of salary to gateman and watchman and Rs.5,000/- for notice charges.