SHRIPATI LAKHU MANE versus THE MEMBER SECRETARY, MAHARASHTRA WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD & ORS.

SHRIPATI LAKHU MANE versus THE MEMBER SECRETARY, MAHARASHTRA WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD & ORS.

Refusal by a contractor to continue work until reciprocal promises are performed by the other party is not 'abandonment' of the contract; where the employer made material changes and failed to afford reasonable facilities (Section 67) the contractor's non-performance was excused and the High Court erred in finding abandonment, so the Trial Court decree in favour of the plaintiff is to be restored.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Shripati Lakhu Mane; Respondent/defendant: The Member Secretary, Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From Judgment of the High Court (first Appeal No.528 of 1998)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and decree of the High Court set aside; judgment and decree of the Trial Court restored.
Legal Topics
Abandonment of Contract, Quantum Meruit, Breach of Contract, Rescission, Damages, Security Deposit, Performance Facilitation, Section 67 Indian Contract Act, Section 75 Indian Contract Act
Contract Law Civil Procedure Abandonment of Contract Quantum Meruit Breach of Contract Rescission Damages Security Deposit +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shripati Lakhu Mane

Appellant/plaintiff

The Member Secretary, Maharashtra Water Supply and Sewerage Board & Ors.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court From Judgment of the High Court (first Appeal No.528 of 1998)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant abandoned the contract
  2. 2 Whether non-availability of specified materials and modification of work-order entitled appellant to refuse performance
  3. 3 Whether respondents’ conduct excused performance under Section 67 Indian Contract Act, 1872

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal by a contractor to continue work until reciprocal promises are performed by the other party is not 'abandonment' of the contract; where the employer made material changes and failed to afford reasonable facilities (Section 67) the contractor's non-performance was excused and the High Court erred in finding abandonment, so the Trial Court decree in favour of the plaintiff is to be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and decree of the High Court set aside; judgment and decree of the Trial Court restored.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and decree of the High Court dated 24.04.2009 set aside
  • Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 02.02.1998 restored (decree for Rs.2497077 with interest at 10% per annum from date of suit)