Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Sl. No. No. of suit Amount claimed Rs.

Amount decreased Rs.

No. of Appeal

1.

1,50,616 91,115,75 1453/94

2. 2,58,757 2,43,542 1452/94

3. 4,09,147 3,10,245 1451/94 The dispute revolves round as to who was responsible for breach of contract and whether the plaintiff firm was entitled to claim damages and if yes, to what extent in view of the pleadings between the parties. The claims made in the suit by the plaintiff contractor came to be resisted by ONGC by filing written statements inter alia contending that there was no breach of contract on the part of the defendant and that the suits filed by the plaintiff are not maintainable as the Court at Mehsana had no jurisdiction. In that, it was further contended that no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Mehsana. It was also contended by the ONGC that the contractor was not entitled to the claims made in the suits as the contractor firm had committed breach of contract and had rendered itself liable under the law.

6. In view of the pleadings between the parties and the facts and circumstances emerging from the record, the Civil Court at Mehsana had framed issues and one of the common issues was "whether the defendants provided that the civil Court at Mehsana had no jurisdiction." "After considering the evidence and hearing the submissions on behalf of the parties, the trial Court recorded the impugned judgments and decrees in the aforesaid three suits. The suits of the plaintiff-contractor came to be decreed. The trial Court held issue of jurisdiction against ONGC. The amount decreed in each of the suits is highlighted in the aforesaid table.

(i) that intimation of conclusion of contract like that acceptance of tender agreement was received from Surat by telegram at Mansa in Mehsana District at the office of the plaintiff-contractor;

(ii) that money due and payable under the work contracts had to be paid at Mansain Mehsana district;

(iii) that the doctrine of debtor should find creditor applies bringing territoriral jurisdiction of Civil Court, Mansa at Mehsana as a place of suing.

10. It would be appropriate to highlight that offers in respect of contracts in question pursuant to the tender notice had been sent by the contractor from Mansa to Surat. Offers had been accepted by Bombay office of ONGC. The agreement after acceptance of offers had been executed at Bombay. Intimations of acceptance of offers of contractor by ONGC has been sent by telegram sent from Surat by Surat office of ONGC, at Mansa in Mehsana district.

15. Therefore, the contention that contract was completed at place Mansa in Mehsana district on the ground that intimation of communication of acceptance i.e. the telegrams were received is not sustainable. Such a contention was wrongly accepted by the trial Court at Mansa in Mehsana district.

The tenders were accepted at Bombay. The work orders were issued by the Superintending Engineer, Gujarat on 9-2-1984 and admittedly not at Mansa. The works were to to performed at Hajira in Surat District. Payments were made at Bombay and Surat. Partner of contractor firm Mr. Khodidas Jethabai has also admitted in his evidence at Ex. 79, para 11, that whatever payments were made had been taken by contractor firm and had been paid and made at Surat and Bombay offices only.