2000 (3) TMI 1098 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules against respondent on breach of contract damages, emphasizing fair play and independent adjudication.

Rambal Company Versus Kerala State Science and Technology Museum, Thiruvananthapurm and Ors.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, finding that the first respondent could not unilaterally assess damages for a disputed breach of contract. The ... - Issues Involved:1. Breach of Contract2. Adjudication of Disputed Breach and Damages3. Applicability of Limitation Act4. Principles of Natural Justice and Fair PlayDetailed Analysis:1. Breach of Contract:The petitioner entered into an agreement (Ext. P1) with the first respondent for the construction of a planetarium building. Disputes arose, leading to the termination of the agreement as per Ext. P2. The petitioner allegedly admitted to the breach in Ext. R1(c), but later repudiated this in Ext. P3, raising counterclaims. The first respondent issued a demand notice (Ext. P4) under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, which the petitioner contested, leading to the current writ petition.2. Adjudication of Disputed Breach and Damages:The court examined whether the first respondent could unilaterally assess damages when the breach of contract was disputed. It was determined that the petitioner did not admit to the breach, as evidenced by Ext. P3. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in State of Karnataka v. Rameshwara Rice Mills, which held that one contracting party cannot adjudicate a disputed breach and assess damages. This principle was reaffirmed by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Abdul Rahiman v. Divisional Forest Officer. Therefore, the first respondent's assessment of damages without judicial adjudication was deemed invalid.3. Applicability of Limitation Act:The petitioner argued that the demand was time-barred, while the first respondent claimed that Article 112 of the Limitation Act applied, making the demand timely. The court did not resolve this issue, leaving it open for adjudication by the appropriate authority.4. Principles of Natural Justice and Fair Play:The court emphasized that orders with civil consequences must adhere to natural justice principles. The first respondent's sudden demand after a long silence, without prior notice or adjudication, was seen as a violation of these principles. This view was supported by a previous judgment in Latheef v. Superintending Engineer, which stressed the need for fair play and independent adjudication before imposing liabilities.Conclusion:The court quashed Exts. P4 and P12 as illegal and arbitrary, upholding the principles of natural justice and fair play. The question of limitation was left open for future adjudication.