{"id":43345,"date":"2009-10-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-10T16:28:30","modified_gmt":"2016-11-10T10:58:30","slug":"khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Khopoli Municipal Council } vs Smt Chanda R.Sable } on 16 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Khopoli Municipal Council } vs Smt Chanda R.Sable } on 16 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: P. B. Majmudar, R. V. More<\/div>\n
                                  - 1 -\n\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                  \n                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n                    FIRST APPEAL NO.433 OF 1998\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n     1. Khopoli Municipal Council       }\n        at and Post: Khopoli Taluka     }\n        Taluka Khalapur,District Raigad }\n\n     2. The Chief Officer, Khopoli        }\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n        Municipal Council,At and Post     }\n        Khopoli,Taluka Khalapur           }\n        District Raigad                   }             . Appellants\n\n                                                 Orig.Defendants)\n\n\n\n\n                               \n                     vs\n     Ram Malhari Sable (since deceased)    }\n                    ig                     }\n     1.   Smt Chanda R.Sable               }\n     2.   Mina Ram Sable                    }\n     3.   Santosh Ram Sable                }\n                  \n     4.   Sandhya Ram Sable             .. }\n     5.   Sachin Ram Sable                   }\n          All adults, residing at Khopoli, }\n          Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad }\n                                                 .. Respondents\n                                                  (Orig.Plaintiff\n      \n\n\n                                                   nos.1 to 5 in\n                                                   the suit)\n   \n\n\n\n                           ..\n     Mr.Gautam Patel a\/w Mr.Rushir Tolat i.b.L.C.Tolat & Co\n     for Appellants\n\n     Mr.S.G.Aney,Sr.Counsel with Mr.Vineet B,Naik with\n\n\n\n\n\n     Mr.R.S.Alange for Respondent nos. 1 to 5.\n\n                       CORAM:P.B.MAJMUDAR AND\n                              R.V.MORE,JJ\n                Reserved on: 6th October, 2009\n                Pronounced on:16th October, 2009\n\n\n\n\n\n     JUDGMENT ( Per R.V.More, J )\n<\/pre>\n
     1.     The appellant (Original Defendants) takes exception<\/p>\n
     to the judgment and decree dated 7th March, 1998 passed<\/p>\n
     by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, at Panvel in<\/p>\n
     Special Civil Suit No.91 of 1992     wherein the appellants<\/p>\n
     were directed to pay Rs.53,32,411\/- to the respondents by<\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:01 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                              – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     way of damages with simple interest at 18 % p.a. From the<\/p>\n
     date of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             The facts leading to the filing of the appeal are<\/p>\n
     as follows :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     2.      One Ram Sable, predecessor-title of the respondents<\/p>\n
     filed    a     suit    against     the     appellants      for    a    perpetual<\/p>\n
     injunction and directing them to obey the agreements and<\/p>\n
     resolutions passed from time to time for the construction<\/p>\n
     of a hospital building.             In the alternative, a claim was<\/p>\n
     also made for recovery of an amount of Rs.35,65,411\/-<\/p>\n
     towards damages. (hereinafter for the sake of convenience<\/p>\n
     Appellants and Respondents are referred to as defendants<\/p>\n
     and plaintiff respectively.) The case of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
     was     that    the        defendants    had    called     for      tender       for<\/p>\n
     construction          of    a   hospital    building.          The     plaintiff<\/p>\n
     filled in the tender and his tender being the lowest, the<\/p>\n
     work of construction of hospital by a written agreement<\/p>\n
     dated 19th August, 1980 was alloted to him.                           The period<\/p>\n
     of completion of the construction of the said hospital<\/p>\n
     was 18 months from the date of agreement. The defendants<\/p>\n
     agreed to supply the required quantity of cement bags for<\/p>\n
     the construction of hospital building.                    The work order in<\/p>\n
     pursuance of agreement was issued on 21st August, 1980.<\/p>\n
     The line out one was given on 12th September, 1980 and<\/p>\n
     actual work of construction started on 15th September,<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                           – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     1980.     The plaintiff thereafter, collected the required<\/p>\n
     material for the construction of the building and also<\/p>\n
     obtained loan from the Bank of Maharashtra to the extent<\/p>\n
     of    Rs.3,50,000\/-.         It     is   the       specific        case     of     the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff that the defendants stopped supply of cement<\/p>\n
     and   therefore,      the    work    was     stopped.            The     rates      of<\/p>\n
     building     material       was     in       the      meantime         enormously<\/p>\n
     increased.    The plaintiff          did not seek any escalation in<\/p>\n
     the rate of         construction         for a period of 18 months.\n<\/p>\n
     However,thereafter          demanded         higher          rate        for       the<\/p>\n
     construction in view of the escalation of the price of<\/p>\n
     the building material and the defendants in pursuant to<\/p>\n
     the demand of plaintiff passed a resolution bearing No.64<\/p>\n
     on 22nd July, 1983 and agreed to the escalation in price.<\/p>\n
     The     plaintiff    continued        the      construction            work      from<\/p>\n
     August,    1983     but,    on    31st   March        1984      the    Collector,<\/p>\n
     Raigad stopped the construction work of the building on<\/p>\n
     the basis of a complaint by one of the Councillors of the<\/p>\n
     defendants. The plaintiff again sought for increase in<\/p>\n
     the rate since        the building           material had             become very<\/p>\n
     costly     during    that    period.         The     defendants          passed       a<\/p>\n
     resolution bearing No.58 on 25th July 1986 and agreed to<\/p>\n
     increase 25 % above the DSR of 1986. This resolution was<\/p>\n
     again stayed by the Collector of Raigad and the plaintiff<\/p>\n
     was compelled to suspend the construction activities.                               An<\/p>\n
     appeal was filed against the order of the Collector to<\/p>\n
     the Director of Municipal Administration.                           However, the<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                               – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     same was dismissed and thereafter                        Revision application<\/p>\n
     was filed before the State of Maharashtra. The State of<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and a<\/p>\n
     direction was given that the plaintiff should complete<\/p>\n
     the    construction      work       as    per     the    rates    given      in    the<\/p>\n
     resolution No.58 dated 25th July, 1986.<\/p>\n
     3.      The plaintiff thereafter in pursuance of the order<\/p>\n
     of the government executed a fresh agreement on 16th May<\/p>\n
     1988.      This
\n                      igagreement         was        subsequently       confirmed        by<\/p>\n
     defendants by passing Resolution No.51 dated 9th June,<\/p>\n
     1988.     The plaintiff contended that they are ready and<\/p>\n
     willing to complete            the construction                work as     per the<\/p>\n
     agreement dated 16th May 1988.                    However, officers of the<\/p>\n
     defendants did not allow the plaintiff to commence the<\/p>\n
     work      and    they    worked      against           their    interest.          The<\/p>\n
     defendants did not pay the plaintiff adequate money, did<\/p>\n
     not supply cement and did not record the measurement in<\/p>\n
     the measurement book.               The plaintiff also averred that<\/p>\n
     had the defendants co-operated, he would have constructed<\/p>\n
     the    hospital    building         in    time     and    would     have       earned<\/p>\n
     goodwill.        However,      for       the     adamant       attitude      of    the<\/p>\n
     officers    of     the       defendants          the    work     could      not     be<\/p>\n
     completed for a period of 9 years. It was also contended<\/p>\n
     that exorbitant         interest was required to be paid for the<\/p>\n
     loan    obtained        by    the        plaintiff       from     the     Bank      of<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra.        An       amount        of    Rs.10,10,000\/-          was      also<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                              – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     claimed from the defendants towards running bills.                             This<\/p>\n
     payment was also delayed by the defendants. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
     ultimately      served       a   notice     on   21st    August,       1989      and<\/p>\n
     thereafter filed a suit requiring the defendants to obey<\/p>\n
     the agreements and resolutions passed by them from time<\/p>\n
     to time and an injunction restraining their officers,<\/p>\n
     servants       and    agents      from    causing     obstruction         in     the<\/p>\n
     construction         work.       An    amount    of     Rs.10,10,000\/-           was<\/p>\n
     claimed towards outstanding bills as on 30th September,<\/p>\n
     1988.\n<\/p>\n
              By way of damages, the plaintiff claimed an amount<\/p>\n
     of Rs.6,60,000\/- for the rent he had to pay for centering<\/p>\n
     and machinery for a period of 11 months at Rs.60,000\/-<\/p>\n
     per month, Rs.15,76,818\/- towards interest amount which<\/p>\n
     the plaintiff was required to pay to the bank, an amount<\/p>\n
     of Rs.3,13,700\/- towards payment of salary to gateman and<\/p>\n
     watchman and Rs.5,000\/- for notice charges.<\/p>\n
     4.      The plaintiff amended the plaint in pursuance of an<\/p>\n
     order on Exhibit 32 and added para No. 39.                               By this<\/p>\n
     amendment, he prayed for obedience of Resolution no.43<\/p>\n
     dated    9th    May    1991.      In     pursuance    of    an    order      below<\/p>\n
     Exhibit 75, the plaint was again amended so as to enhance<\/p>\n
     the original claim of Rs.35,65,411\/- to Rs.60,82,418\/-.<\/p>\n
     The plaintiff revised the claim for damages under the<\/p>\n
     caption” interest” from Rs.15,76,811\/- to Rs.17,18,811\/-.<\/p>\n
     The plaintiff further claimed centering material bills at<\/p>\n
     Rs.60,000\/- per month from the date of notice till the<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                             – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     institution of suit totalling Rs.3,60,000\/-.                              Thus, the<\/p>\n
     claim for rent           for centering          and machinery             and other<\/p>\n
     material is calculated at Rs.10,20,000\/- as on the date<\/p>\n
     of    suit.    The   plaintiff         also     added       new    claim      of     Rs.<\/p>\n
     19,50,000\/-.         This       claim    was     made        on    the     basis      of<\/p>\n
     resolution No.43 dated 9th May 1991.                         It is contended by<\/p>\n
     the     plaintiff        that    the     defendants            agreed       to     give<\/p>\n
     construction rate as per DSR for 1991-92.                             Balance work<\/p>\n
     of the hospital building was estimated at                          Rs.78,00,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
     and had the work was completed, he would have earned 25 %<\/p>\n
     profit that is how claim of Rs.19,50,000\/- was made.                                 The<\/p>\n
     plaintiff also claimed 24 % interest on the decreetal<\/p>\n
     amount.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     5.      The   defendants        by     filing        the     written       statement<\/p>\n
     resisted the claim of the plaintiff. The facts in respect<\/p>\n
     of calling for tender, contract with the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
     issuance      of   the    work    order        are     not     disputed       by     the<\/p>\n
     defendants.        It was contended by the defendants that they<\/p>\n
     have supplied 3355 cement bags to the plaintiff during<\/p>\n
     the period from           14th November,             1980 to       3rd December,<\/p>\n
     1981.     It was contended that considering the total supply<\/p>\n
     of cement bags to the plaintiff                  and the total work done<\/p>\n
     by the plaintiffs at site, it cannot be said that the<\/p>\n
     construction work was             suspended due              to non       supply of<\/p>\n
     cement.       The defendants denied that they have committed<\/p>\n
     any breach of the agreement for the supply of cement. It<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     was the case of the defendants that payment of advance<\/p>\n
     towards material, running account bills etc have been<\/p>\n
     paid to the plaintiff and inspite of this he did not<\/p>\n
     complete the construction of hospital within the agreed<\/p>\n
     period    and     completely         stopped        the     construction           since<\/p>\n
     November, 1981.           The plaintiff was informed from time to<\/p>\n
     time by letters dated 15th                        June 1986, 19th February<\/p>\n
     1982, 31st February 1982 and 12th July, 1982 for the<\/p>\n
     lapses committed on his part. Notice dated 16th September<\/p>\n
     1982 was also issued to him.                      In the said notice, it was<\/p>\n
     contended       that       the       defendants           complied        with       its<\/p>\n
     obligation under the agreement                     and inspite of this, the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff       failed      to       complete        the     work      within        the<\/p>\n
     prescribed        period.            It     was     specific        case      of     the<\/p>\n
     defendants      that      plaintiff         raised     false       contentions        of<\/p>\n
     price escalation of building material and suspended the<\/p>\n
     work. It also contended that brother of the plaintiff,<\/p>\n
     Laxman     Sable       being     a    Municipal           Councillor       used      his<\/p>\n
     position to gain undue advantage and attempted to seek<\/p>\n
     escallation in the amount of construction of the hospital<\/p>\n
     building. It was contended that the plaintiff did not<\/p>\n
     make sincere efforts for completion of                         the construction<\/p>\n
     work     within    a      period      of     18     months.             Inspite       of<\/p>\n
     resolution        no.64     dated         22nd     July     1983    granting         him<\/p>\n
     increased rates, the plaintiff started construction at a<\/p>\n
     very slowly speed just to give a feeling that work was<\/p>\n
     started.        The defendants supplied 1700 bags of cement<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     during the period from 10th March 1983 to 8th October,<\/p>\n
     1984.     An amount of Rs.2,00,000\/- and Rs.1,00,000\/- was<\/p>\n
     paid     on   30th       December      1983        and        14th    February         1983<\/p>\n
     respectively.           Subsequently, resolution no. 58 dated 25th<\/p>\n
     July, 1986 was passed under which the plaintiff was to be<\/p>\n
     paid    25    %    above     DSR     of    1986         and    an    amount      of     Rs.<\/p>\n
     2,00,000\/- was to be given by way of advance. However,<\/p>\n
     both the resolutions were                  quashed and set aside by the<\/p>\n
     Collector and the respondents were directed to complete<\/p>\n
     the    work   as
\n                        igper     the     original       tender          rates.        It    was<\/p>\n
     contended that the government allowed the appeal of the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff whereunder directions were given to complete<\/p>\n
     the construction of hospital building as per resolution<\/p>\n
     no. 58 dated 25th July, 1986.                       However, payment of Rs.<\/p>\n
     2,00,000\/- was turned down which was agreed to be given<\/p>\n
     as    advance      to    the    plaintiffs.             In     pursuance        of     this<\/p>\n
     decision, the defendants supplied 1000 bags of cement<\/p>\n
     between he period              from 20th March 1988 to 29th April<\/p>\n
     1988.     However, the plaintiff started demanding payment<\/p>\n
     of all the work completed by them as per new rates which<\/p>\n
     was     contrary        to   the     government           order       itself.           The<\/p>\n
     defendants paid to the plaintiffs 4th running bill of Rs.<\/p>\n
     6,09,600\/-. It is specific case of the defendants that<\/p>\n
     after receipt of this bill, the plaintiff again stopped<\/p>\n
     construction         work      and    did         not     obey       the     terms      and<\/p>\n
     conditions incorporated in the agreement dated 16th May<\/p>\n
     1988 executed in pursuance of government order.                                  In such<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                               – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     a situation, the defendants passed a resolution dated<\/p>\n
     23rd    December,       1988      and    thereafter           the    plaintiff       was<\/p>\n
     served with            communication that               he should       start work<\/p>\n
     within 15 days otherwise the work will stand withdrawn.<\/p>\n
     Inspite of this notice, the plaintiff did not re-start<\/p>\n
     the     work.          In   the     meantime,           all     the    files        were<\/p>\n
     requisitioned by the Collector of Raigad. The defendants<\/p>\n
     were ordered not to make payment to the plaintiff. In the<\/p>\n
     above    view     of    the    facts,         it   was    contended          that    the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff was never interested in starting the work as<\/p>\n
     per the latter agreement                 and filed a false suit.                   It is<\/p>\n
     the specific contention of the defendants that they had<\/p>\n
     recorded measurement of construction done by plaintiffs<\/p>\n
     in their measurement book. No further work was done by<\/p>\n
     the plaintiff beyond the work recorded in the measurement<\/p>\n
     book.       The    running         bills         have    been       paid     for     the<\/p>\n
     measurement that were recorded.                    The claim along with the<\/p>\n
     amended    claim        have      been    specifically              denied    by     the<\/p>\n
     defendants.        On the contrary, the defendants contended<\/p>\n
     that they have made extra payment of Rs.4,55,000\/- to the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff.        They also contended                   that they supplied in<\/p>\n
     total    6055     cement       bags      to    the      plaintiff.           However,<\/p>\n
     plaintiff used 4020 cement bags and 2035 bags of cement<\/p>\n
     were received by the plaintiffs in excess.                            The price of<\/p>\n
     the same is at Rs.63,737\/-.                   Thus, the defendants claimed<\/p>\n
     an amount of Rs.5,18,937\/- from the plaintiffs for which<\/p>\n
     counter claim was made.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                            – 10 –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     6.      The plaintiff by filing written statement denied<\/p>\n
     the counter claim of the defendants. At the stage of<\/p>\n
     evidence, the plaintiff has restricted his claim to an<\/p>\n
     alternate prayer for damages.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     7.      The   learned        trial    Judge       in    view     of    the      above<\/p>\n
     pleadings framed as many as 13 issues.                            The plaintiff<\/p>\n
     examined his brother who is the power of attorney holder<\/p>\n
     as PW No.1. The plaintiff also examined one Jamalbhai<\/p>\n
     Sisotia as PW2. On behalf of the                       defendants        one Sunil<\/p>\n
     Gawde, Civil Engineer was examined as DW 1.                               Both the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff     and      the     defendants         relied     upon      number       of<\/p>\n
     documents       to     which    reference          will     be     made      at     an<\/p>\n
     appropriate place.           The learned trial Judge on the basis<\/p>\n
     of the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence came to<\/p>\n
     the conclusion that the defendants have committed breach<\/p>\n
     of contract by stopping supply of cement by not making<\/p>\n
     payment in time and by not giving cooperation to the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff.      The trial Court also held that the resolution<\/p>\n
     no. 43 dated 9th May 1991 is legal and valid. The trial<\/p>\n
     court    also        held    that    the        defendants       has     not      paid<\/p>\n
     outstanding          bill    amount        of     Rs.10,10,000\/-           to      the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff. The trial court granted damages including the<\/p>\n
     above amount of Rs.10,10,000\/- at Rs.53,37,411\/- with 18<\/p>\n
     % interest p.a.from the date of the suit till realisation<\/p>\n
     of the decreetal amount.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                       – 11 –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     8.      Mr.Gautam           Patel,    learned       counsel        for      the<\/p>\n
     defendants   took    us     through   the    oral     evidence        of    the<\/p>\n
     plaintiffs    and    the     defendants.     He     also     invited        our<\/p>\n
     attention     to     various      correspondence           and       notices<\/p>\n
     exchanged between the parties.              He submitted that the<\/p>\n
     defendants have not committed any breach in supply of<\/p>\n
     cement bags to the plaintiff. The measurement of the work<\/p>\n
     done   by   the    plaintiff    was   forthwith        taken      into      the<\/p>\n
     measurement book.          The plaintiffs was given from time to<\/p>\n
     time amounts towards advances and running bills.                            The<\/p>\n
     plaintiff has alleged          breach in     respect of          the first<\/p>\n
     agreement    dated    28th     August,      1980.         However,         that<\/p>\n
     agreement was not produced on record.                Earlier agreement<\/p>\n
     dated 19th August, 1980 is superseded by latter agreement<\/p>\n
     dated 16th May 1988.         He submitted that if allegations of<\/p>\n
     the plaintiff is about breach of the first agreement,<\/p>\n
     then the said agreement ought to have been produced on<\/p>\n
     record. However, the plaintiff has not done so.                      He also<\/p>\n
     submitted that if the suit is on the basis of latter<\/p>\n
     agreement dated 16th May 1988 then a grievance cannot be<\/p>\n
     made about breach of the terms and conditions of the<\/p>\n
     first agreement.      He submitted that finding of the trial<\/p>\n
     court cannot be sustained if the evidence on record is<\/p>\n
     appreciated in its proper perspective. He submitted that<\/p>\n
     the plaintiff’s brother Laxman Sable is an influential<\/p>\n
     person being a Councillor of the defendants-council since<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                        – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     1975.    The suit was filed by the said Laxman Sable as a<\/p>\n
     power of attorney holder of the plaintiff.                              The said<\/p>\n
     Laxman Sable had taken undue advantage of his position<\/p>\n
     and got passed various resolutions from time to time. He<\/p>\n
     also submitted that the plaintiff could not prove that<\/p>\n
     the defendants had        committed breach              of the        terms and<\/p>\n
     conditions    of     agreement.    On      the     contrary        it    was     the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff who was not interested in completion of the<\/p>\n
     construction of the hospital work and only interested in<\/p>\n
     getting increased rate in construction amount. Mr.Patel<\/p>\n
     also submitted that the plaintiff failed to prove that<\/p>\n
     Rs.10,10,000\/- is due and recoverable from the defendant-<\/p>\n
     council. He submitted that the plaintiff also failed to<\/p>\n
     prove damages under the head of ‘loss of profit’, salary<\/p>\n
     of staff,     rent of centering and machinery and interest<\/p>\n
     on loan. He lastly submitted that the plaintiff’s suit is<\/p>\n
     liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     9.      Mr.Aney, learned senior counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff invited our attention towards the prayers made<\/p>\n
     in the suit and submitted that the suit was filed for<\/p>\n
     enforcement     of     the   various         resolutions            passed        by<\/p>\n
     defendants from time to time. He invited our attention to<\/p>\n
     the text     of the resolutions of the defendants passed in<\/p>\n
     the years 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988 and 1991.                        He submitted<\/p>\n
     that there is enough evidence on record to show that the<\/p>\n
     the defendants itself committed breach of the terms of<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                         – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     contract and terminated the contract.                     Mr.Aney took us<\/p>\n
     through   the    impugned     judgment        and    submitted       that       the<\/p>\n
     learned trial Judge has given cogent reasons in arriving<\/p>\n
     at a conclusion that an amount of Rs.10,10,000\/- is due<\/p>\n
     and recoverable from the defendants to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
     He also submitted that their grant of damages under other<\/p>\n
     heads are allowed on the basis of evidence on record and<\/p>\n
     the same cannot be faulted with in any way.<\/p>\n
           Mr.Aney lastly submitted that the appeal filed is<\/p>\n
     devoid    of    substance     and       the    same      deserves        to     be<\/p>\n
     dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     10.   While     considering      the    rival        contentions,          it    is<\/p>\n
     necessary to be seen        as to who has committed breach of<\/p>\n
     contract.      In this regard, voluminous evidence produced<\/p>\n
     by the parties is required to be considered along with<\/p>\n
     the   oral     evidence   adduced       by     the    parties        and      only<\/p>\n
     thereafter liability of either parties will have to be<\/p>\n
     fixed.    There is no dispute that the plaintiff’s tender<\/p>\n
     was   accepted     and    work     of    construction           of     hospital<\/p>\n
     building was allotted to him.               Accordingly, agreement was<\/p>\n
     executed on 19th August, 1980. Under this agreement, the<\/p>\n
     defendants      undertook     to    supply       cement       bags      to      the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff. The construction was to be completed within a<\/p>\n
     period of 18 months from the date of execution of the<\/p>\n
     agreement.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                            – 14 –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     11.       At this stage, the evidence of the parties is<\/p>\n
     required to be appreciated. Laxman Sable was examined as<\/p>\n
     PW 1 who is brother and power of attorney holder of the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff.     He deposed in his deposition that from 1978<\/p>\n
     to 1984 he was the Municipal Councillor of the defendant<\/p>\n
     council.      Thereafter, he deposed about the tender and<\/p>\n
     agreement     executed         between         the      defendants          and      the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff for construction of the hospital. He further<\/p>\n
     deposed    that
\n                     ig cement      bags    were      to      be    supplied         by   the<\/p>\n
     defendants        in     accordance            with        the      progress          of<\/p>\n
     construction       and    it     was      decided           that      construction<\/p>\n
     material was to          be procured           by the         plaintiff against<\/p>\n
     which   the   defendants        were     to     pay       advances        and     these<\/p>\n
     advances were to be adjusted in their running bills.                                  He<\/p>\n
     also deposed that a loan of Rs.3,50,000\/- was obtained by<\/p>\n
     plaintiff from the Bank of Maharashtra, Khopoli Branch,<\/p>\n
     in the name of the Company and repayment was to be made<\/p>\n
     within interest at the rate of 18 % p.a.                         He deposed that<\/p>\n
     the first running bill was issued within 2\/3 months from<\/p>\n
     commencing        of     the    construction               and       progress         of<\/p>\n
     construction was depending on the supply of cement bags<\/p>\n
     from the defendants.           He testified that supply of cement<\/p>\n
     bags should have been atleast 1000 bags per month as the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff had capacity to utilise 1000 bags of cement.<\/p>\n
     Cement in those days was available on permit and till<\/p>\n
     September     1981     the     defendants        supplied          3355      bags     of<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                          – 15 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     cement.       He    testified      that    supply     of   cement      was     not<\/p>\n
     regular      after    September,      1981      and     construction           was<\/p>\n
     stopped for want of cement.               He also testified that after<\/p>\n
     September 1981 to July 1983 rates of building material<\/p>\n
     were   increased       by   100%    and      therefore     the     defendants<\/p>\n
     accepted      his     proposal       for     increase       in      rates       of<\/p>\n
     construction and passed resolution bearing no.64 of 1983.<\/p>\n
     This resolution was stayed by the Collector, Raigad at<\/p>\n
     the instance of one Councillor.                He preferred a revision<\/p>\n
     with the Commissioner, Raigad.                  However, the same was<\/p>\n
     rejected and stay was confirmed.                    He also deposed that<\/p>\n
     against      order     of    the     Commissioner,          he      filed       an<\/p>\n
     application to the government and the government allowed<\/p>\n
     his application and as per this decision it was decided<\/p>\n
     to enter into a fresh agreement which was executed on<\/p>\n
     16th May 1988 and thereafter resolution no.51 of 1988 was<\/p>\n
     passed on 29th June, 2988.             He deposed that he was ready<\/p>\n
     and willing to perform his part of contract as per the<\/p>\n
     new agreement but, the defendants were not ready.                            They<\/p>\n
     did    not   abide     by   the     terms     and     conditions        of     the<\/p>\n
     agreement.         They did not supply cement bags and did not<\/p>\n
     make any payment against it. In para 17 he deposed that<\/p>\n
     he has submitted the running bill of Rs.10,10,000\/- to<\/p>\n
     the defendants.        However, payment under this bill was not<\/p>\n
     paid to him and therefore on 21st August, 1989 notice was<\/p>\n
     issued to the defendants.                 In para 8 he deposed that<\/p>\n
     after filing of the suit there was a meeting between the<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                         – 16 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     office bearers of        the defendants              and himself         on 31st<\/p>\n
     December, 1990 and it was decided to make payment of the<\/p>\n
     running bills of Rs.10,10,000\/- and they further agreed<\/p>\n
     payment    of    Rs.26,00,000\/-      towards           damages      subject       to<\/p>\n
     outcome of the suit.         The defendants thereafter passed a<\/p>\n
     resolution No.43 dated 9th May 1991.                   The defendants also<\/p>\n
     wrote a letter on 5th December 1991 to the Collector,<\/p>\n
     Raigad    seeking     permission         to    make          payment      of     Rs.<\/p>\n
     10,10,000\/-.      However, the Collector, Raigad did not give<\/p>\n
     permission and no payment is made till today.                          In para 8<\/p>\n
     he has deposed that during the pendency of the suit he<\/p>\n
     became    President    of    Khopoli      Municipal          Council       and    he<\/p>\n
     advised the plaintiff to give up their claim regarding<\/p>\n
     the   construction      of   the    hospital           and    suit     claim      is<\/p>\n
     restricted for recovery of the amount of running bills<\/p>\n
     and dsamages.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     12.     In cross examination, he admitted that he was the<\/p>\n
     Councillor during the period from 1978 to 1984 and from<\/p>\n
     1996 onwards. He further admitted that whenever he was<\/p>\n
     not   Councillor      somebody     from        his     family     used      to    be<\/p>\n
     Councillor of the defendant-Council.                    However, he denied<\/p>\n
     that he has influenced other Municipal Councillors.                               He<\/p>\n
     also admitted that he was unable to give the account of<\/p>\n
     the centering.        In para 11 he admitted that whatever<\/p>\n
     bills     he    has   produced      on        record     are     as      per     the<\/p>\n
     measurement      maintained    by    the        defendants.         He    further<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                     – 17 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     admitted that the completed construction was measured and<\/p>\n
     plaintiff has submitted the running bills accordingly.<\/p>\n
     He also admitted that there is no construction which is<\/p>\n
     not measured by the defendants and about which no bill is<\/p>\n
     prepared by him.      In para 13 he has specifically admitted<\/p>\n
     that the plaintiff had utilised 2355 cement bags upto<\/p>\n
     February 1982. He also admitted that plaintiffs received<\/p>\n
     3355 cement bags from the defendants up to February 1988.<\/p>\n
     He admitted that measurement books were signed by his<\/p>\n
     brother.\n<\/p>\n
                   He admitted the measurement recorded in the<\/p>\n
     books. He admitted having received 3 running bills. In<\/p>\n
     para 14 he has deposed that he has not produced any<\/p>\n
     document in respect of account of centering materials.<\/p>\n
     He also admitted in this para that he has not produced<\/p>\n
     any more document whatsoever in respect of the claim of<\/p>\n
     Rs.10,10,000\/-.       He was confronted with the advocate’s<\/p>\n
     letter      dated   6th   November,        1988    under        which       the<\/p>\n
     plaintiffs agreed for deduction of an amount of advance<\/p>\n
     from running bills. In para 15 he admitted that there is<\/p>\n
     no documentary evidence in respect of the claim towards<\/p>\n
     payment of salaries of watchman and gatekeeper.                      In this<\/p>\n
     para   he    also   deposed   that    he    has     not     produced        any<\/p>\n
     document for refund of interest of loan amount to the<\/p>\n
     bank or interest.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     13.    The plaintiff also examined one Jamal Sisotia as PW<\/p>\n
     2. This witness is doing business of contractor in the<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                            – 18 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     name    of    Universal       Contractor.        He     deposed      about       the<\/p>\n
     material required for slab work and cost of material.                             He<\/p>\n
     has also given rate of rent of that material.                           In cross<\/p>\n
     examination he has admitted that Laxman Sable is having<\/p>\n
     his own centering materials<\/p>\n
     14.     The defendants examined Sunil Gawde Civil Engineer<\/p>\n
     as    DW1.      He    deposed    about     the    tender       and     agreement<\/p>\n
     executed between the defendants and the plaintiff on 19th<\/p>\n
     August, 1980. He deposed that up to 30th December 1981<\/p>\n
     the     defendants         supplied     3355     cement        bags      to      the<\/p>\n
     plaintiffs and there was no dispute between the parties<\/p>\n
     about supply of cement. He further testified that the<\/p>\n
     plaintiffs did not complete the construction of hospital<\/p>\n
     in proportionate of supply of cement. The Chief Officer<\/p>\n
     accordingly sent notices to the plaintiff from time to<\/p>\n
     time which are exhibited at Exhibit 152 to 154.                                   He<\/p>\n
     specifically deposed that the plaintiff did not complete<\/p>\n
     the work within the prescribed time but on the contrary<\/p>\n
     demanded higher rent and thereafter removed the centering<\/p>\n
     material from site and work was stopped. Notice was given<\/p>\n
     accordingly on 16th September, 1982 to the plaintiff. He<\/p>\n
     deposed      that    the    plaintiff     used     to       make   request       and<\/p>\n
     accordingly he was given cement bags. He deposed that<\/p>\n
     about     the       resolution    of      1984        and     1986     regarding<\/p>\n
     escalation      of    price.     However,      these        resolutions        were<\/p>\n
     stayed by the Collector. In para 4 he referred to the<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                         – 19 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     letter dated 6th April, 1988 at Exhibit 163 in which the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff agreed for the deduction of advance from the<\/p>\n
     running    bills.      He    has    deposed        that    the    defendants<\/p>\n
     supplied total 6000 cement bags.                  However, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
     utilised only 4000 cement bags. After the fresh contract<\/p>\n
     of 1988, the        plaintiff started         work for         sometime and<\/p>\n
     again started demanding increase in rates.                       Thereafter,<\/p>\n
     the defendants passed a resolution dated 23rd December<\/p>\n
     1988 calling upon the plaintiff to start work within 15<\/p>\n
     days.\n<\/p>\n
               The plaintiff was informed accordingly by letter<\/p>\n
     dated 4th January 1989. However, the plaintiff did not<\/p>\n
     start work of construction. He specifically denied that<\/p>\n
     demand    of   Rs.10,10,000\/-       was     for    the    work    done.        He<\/p>\n
     further deposed that there is no construction on site for<\/p>\n
     which no payment is made to the plaintiff as per the<\/p>\n
     measurements and defendants are not liable towards the<\/p>\n
     loss for any unexecuted work.               He also deposed that the<\/p>\n
     defendants never restrained the plaintiff from carrying<\/p>\n
     out further construction.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     15.       In cross examination in para 14 he deposed that<\/p>\n
     in the year 1980 Laxman Sable was Councillor from his<\/p>\n
     family and thereafter in the next term in 1984 wife of<\/p>\n
     Laxman Sable was the councillor.              For the term 1990, son<\/p>\n
     of Laxman Sable was the Councillor from his family and in<\/p>\n
     the year 1992 Tukaram Son of Laxman Sable and wife of<\/p>\n
     Laxman    Sable   were      the    Councillors.           In     para    20    he<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                           – 20 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     admitted that the plaintiff submitted bills for centering<\/p>\n
     at    Exhibit   121    dated    6th    February        1989     and    bills      at<\/p>\n
     Exhibit 126 and 127 claiming interest on bank loan and by<\/p>\n
     Exhibit 128 claimed bills for watchman.                        In para 21 he<\/p>\n
     denied that there was compromise between the defendants<\/p>\n
     and the plaintiff in the year 1990 as per Exhibit 139.<\/p>\n
     He     expressed       ignorance       regarding          the       plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
     application dated 16th            March 1991           for payment         of Rs.<\/p>\n
     10,10,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
     16.     The plaintiff claimed breach of the agreement on<\/p>\n
     the part of the defendants for want of supply of cement<\/p>\n
     bags     being not proportionate etc etc.                     If the case of<\/p>\n
     the plaintiff is perused minutely then it is clear that<\/p>\n
     the    plaintiffs      was   alleging         breach    of    the     terms      and<\/p>\n
     conditions      in     supply    of    cement       bag,      prior       to     the<\/p>\n
     executing the latter agreement dated 16th May 1988. It is<\/p>\n
     not disputed that the second agreement was executed in<\/p>\n
     pursuance of the         government order            and thereby agreeing<\/p>\n
     to the rate of construction as per resolution nos. 58<\/p>\n
     dated    25th    July,       1986.         Under     this      agreement         the<\/p>\n
     plaintiffs      were    obliged       to   complete       the     construction<\/p>\n
     within a period of 15 months.                    It is clear from this<\/p>\n
     agreement that the rate as per resolution no.58 dated<\/p>\n
     25th July, 1986          was to be given to the plaintiff for<\/p>\n
     further construction and further period of 15 months was<\/p>\n
     also given to him to complete the construction.                           In view<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                            – 21 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     of    these   developments          the   plaintiffs          could     not     have<\/p>\n
     complained about the alleged breach of agreement on the<\/p>\n
     part of the defendants namely non supply of cement bags<\/p>\n
     etc    etc    which    is    prior     to      the    execution       of     latter<\/p>\n
     agreement of 1988.             However, since it is the specific<\/p>\n
     case of the plaintiffs made out in the plaint and in his<\/p>\n
     deposition let us scrutinise the evidence in this regard.<\/p>\n
     17.            In the light of the evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
     respective parties, we              have to       consider which            of the<\/p>\n
     party has committed            breach of the agreement. It is the<\/p>\n
     case of the plaintiff that the defendants have committed<\/p>\n
     breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement by<\/p>\n
     not    supplying       cement        bags,      by     not     recording          the<\/p>\n
     measurement      in    the    measurement            book    because       of   non-<\/p>\n
     cooperative attitude of the defendants and non payment of<\/p>\n
     running bills.          Case of the defendants on the contrary<\/p>\n
     was that supply of cement bags were made as per the<\/p>\n
     requirements      of     the        plaintiff.        The     measurement          of<\/p>\n
     construction      was       taken    in     the      measurement        book      and<\/p>\n
     payment of advance of running bills were made to the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff.        The plaintiff was obliged to complete the<\/p>\n
     construction of hospital building within a period of 18<\/p>\n
     months from the date of execution of the agreement dated<\/p>\n
     19th August, 1980. In para 13 constituted attorney of the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff deposed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                         – 22 –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          We have utilised 2355 cement bags up to
\n     February 1982.   Again I say that up to 3rd
\n     December 1981. It is true that we received<\/p>\n
     3355 cement bags from the appellant up to   “February
\n     1982.”.\n<\/p>\n
          It is true that we received 3355 cement bags
\n     from the council up to February, 1982. ”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Above   admission     on    the     part   of    the     C.A.of       the<\/p>\n
     plaintiffs do show that the Municipal council supplied<\/p>\n
     3355 cement bags to the plaintiff till February 1982.\n<\/p>\n
     However, only 2355 bags were utilised up to February 1982<\/p>\n
     or 3rd December 1981.          This admission totally demolish<\/p>\n
     the case of the plaintiff that construction of hospital<\/p>\n
     work was stopped due to non supply of cement bags.                        It is<\/p>\n
     clear    from   the   above    admission       that      though       adequate<\/p>\n
     quantity of cement bags were supplied to the plaintiff,<\/p>\n
     he    could   not   utilise   the    total     bags     supplied        by    the<\/p>\n
     municipal council.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     18.     In para 11 of the cross examination, C.A. of the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff Laxman Sable deposed as follows :<\/p>\n
             “What ever running bills we have produced on
\n             record are as per the measurement maintained                          by
\n             the defendants. It is true that whatever
\n             construction was completed that has been
\n             measured and we have submitted the running
\n             bills accordingly. There is no construction
\n             which is not measured for and about which no
\n             bill is prepared by me. ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             This admission of the C.A. Of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          – 23 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     also falsify the plaintiff’s that they                        defendants did<\/p>\n
     not measure the constructed work and running bills are<\/p>\n
     not paid accordingly.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     19.    In   this    regard,      the    defendants         relied     upon      the<\/p>\n
     documentary evidence at Exhibit 150 to 154.                         Exhibit 150<\/p>\n
     is letter dated 25th June 1981 addressed to the plaintiff<\/p>\n
     by the defendants.         It is stated in this letter that they<\/p>\n
     have   supplied     the    required         cement     and         directed     the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff to start construction. Exhibit 151 is letter<\/p>\n
     dated 18th August 1982 addressed to the plaintiff by the<\/p>\n
     defendants.         This    letter          indicate       that     since     30th<\/p>\n
     September 1981 work is being stopped on site and the<\/p>\n
     defendants agreed to consider the extention of time for<\/p>\n
     construction of the building.                Exhibit 152 is the letter<\/p>\n
     dated 19th February 1982. in this letter complaint is<\/p>\n
     made by the defendants that though in the month of 1981<\/p>\n
     advance is paid to the plaintiff by running bills the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff did half of the slab work and then it was<\/p>\n
     stopped.      It    is    further      pointed       out     that    they     have<\/p>\n
     supplied      cement       for     first        slab         and     thereafter<\/p>\n
     construction       is    being   stopped.            The     defendants       also<\/p>\n
     pointed     out    that     work       of     the    plaintiff         was      not<\/p>\n
     satisfactory.       At exhibit 153 is letter dated 12th July<\/p>\n
     1982 by the defendants to the plaintiff.                      By this letter<\/p>\n
     it was pointed out to the plaintiffs that he has removed<\/p>\n
     the centering material from the site which                        is not proper<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                       – 24 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     behaviour.    Exhibit     154    is    letter       addressed        to     the<\/p>\n
     defendants by the plaintiff which show that due to rains<\/p>\n
     there was damage and therefore the plaintiff removed the<\/p>\n
     centering material from site.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     20.    If the correspondence produced by the defendants at<\/p>\n
     Exhibit     150    and   154    is    considered       in     its        proper<\/p>\n
     perspective then it is clear to our mind that there is no<\/p>\n
     substance in the contention of the                plaintiff         that the<\/p>\n
     construction work was stopped for want of cement bags.<\/p>\n
     The above documentary evidence coupled with the admitted<\/p>\n
     fact that the plaintiff received 3355 cement bags till<\/p>\n
     February    1982    do   show   that      the    plaintiff       failed      to<\/p>\n
     complete construction work in proportionate with supply<\/p>\n
     of cement bags by the defendants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     21.    It is true that in resolution passed in the year<\/p>\n
     1983 and 1984 it is stated the the work of hospital<\/p>\n
     building could not be completed for want of supply of<\/p>\n
     cement and accordingly, escalation in rates were granted<\/p>\n
     to the plaintiff in        construction.           However, it is the<\/p>\n
     case of the defendants that family of the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
     influential and since 1974 members of the said family<\/p>\n
     were      continuously     municipal            councillors         of      the<\/p>\n
     defendants.       At one time there were 3 councillors from<\/p>\n
     the family of       the plaintiff         and brother       Laxman Sable<\/p>\n
     C.A.of the plainitiff and who was occupying position of<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                           – 25 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     President of the council.             It is the specific case of the<\/p>\n
     defendants    that    the     plaintiff’s       family       used     to     their<\/p>\n
     influence to get         undue advantage.              From    the evidence<\/p>\n
     produced      on    record      it      is     clear           that        entire<\/p>\n
     correspondence in respect of the subject matter of the<\/p>\n
     suit was made by Laxman Sable brother of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
     with the defendant-council.              Evidence was also given by<\/p>\n
     the said Laxman Sable on behalf of the said plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
     In these circumstances, the only inference can be drawn<\/p>\n
     is that though
\n                     ig   tender was         allotted and          agreement was<\/p>\n
     executed in the name of the plaintiff                      Ram Sable. Yet,<\/p>\n
     construction was undertaken by Laxman Sable who was at<\/p>\n
     the relevant time was councillor of the defendants.                             In<\/p>\n
     our opinion, it is highly inappropriate on the part of a<\/p>\n
     sitting councillor, to obtain contract of the municipal<\/p>\n
     council in which he is a municipal councillor either in<\/p>\n
     his name or in the name of the family member.                        We are of<\/p>\n
     the   clear    opinion      that     brother    of     the     plaintiff        by<\/p>\n
     utilising his position as councillors, and subsequently<\/p>\n
     as    President     of   the       municipal      council        got       passed<\/p>\n
     resolutions mentioned above. In that view of the matter,<\/p>\n
     in    our   view,    weightage        need     not    be     given      to     the<\/p>\n
     resolution    passed     in    the    years      1983      and    1986       while<\/p>\n
     arriving at a conclusion as to who is at fault especially<\/p>\n
     when witness of the plaintiff admitted that though the<\/p>\n
     plaintiffs had received 3355 cement bags till December,<\/p>\n
     1982 only 2355 cement bags were utilised till February<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                              – 26 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     1982.    We     find     substance        in      the    contention         of     the<\/p>\n
     defendants      that       the    plaintiff       was    and        in   fact     only<\/p>\n
     interested      in     getting      escalation           in    the       amount     of<\/p>\n
     construction       and      not    in     completing          the    construction<\/p>\n
     within    the      stipulated       time         under    the       agreement       in<\/p>\n
     question.       Thus, it is the plaintiff who has committed<\/p>\n
     breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement by<\/p>\n
     not completing the construction work and the defendants<\/p>\n
     thus cannot be held liable for the same.\n<\/p>\n
     22.     Once it is concluded that the defendants have not<\/p>\n
     committed any breaches of the agreement and it is the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff who has failed to complete the construction<\/p>\n
     work within the stipulated time then in our view, the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff is certainly not entitled for any damage under<\/p>\n
     any of the heads. However, since the evidence is adduced<\/p>\n
     by respective parties in this regard, we are dealing with<\/p>\n
     the same aspect hereinafter.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     23.     Firstly, we will deal with the plaintiff claim of<\/p>\n
     Rs.10,10,000\/-         towards      running       bills.       This      amount     is<\/p>\n
     claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of a writing dated<\/p>\n
     31st December 1990 at Exhibit 139 and resolution nos. 43<\/p>\n
     dated 9th May 1991 at Exhibit 163 and letter of the<\/p>\n
     President     of     the    defendant-         Municipal       council       to    the<\/p>\n
     Collector, Raigad dated 5th December, 1992 at Exhibit<\/p>\n
     149.     Exhibit 139 is the minutes of meeting.                                  These<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                         – 27 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     minutes are signed             by the   President of         the municipal<\/p>\n
     council and 8 others. C.A. of plaintiff Laxman Sable and<\/p>\n
     his wife are the signatories of these minutes.                          Wife of<\/p>\n
     Laxman Sable is shown as councillor of defendant-council.<\/p>\n
     Under these minutes the            meeting was called for settling<\/p>\n
     of the dispute between the parties and it was stated that<\/p>\n
     the    plaintiffs    has       filed    a   suit    for    damage       of     Rs.<\/p>\n
     36,00,000\/- from the defendants.                   It is further stated<\/p>\n
     that out of Rs.36,00,000\/- amount of Rs.10,00,000\/- is<\/p>\n
     towards the running bills and amount of Rs.26,00,000\/- is<\/p>\n
     towards damages.         It is further stated that the amount of<\/p>\n
     damages will be subject to the final hearing of the suit<\/p>\n
     and the plaintiffs should start work of construction of<\/p>\n
     hospital and complete the same within a period of one<\/p>\n
     year    and     within     8    days    from       the    commencement          of<\/p>\n
     construction an amount of Rs.10,00,000\/- is be given to<\/p>\n
     the plaintiffs.          Clause 5 of the minutes of the meeting<\/p>\n
     is    very    specific    under    which     final       decision      in    this<\/p>\n
     regard is to be taken after approval of the council and<\/p>\n
     secretary of the Urban Development Department.<\/p>\n
     24.    Exhibit 134 is the resolution no.43 passed on 9th<\/p>\n
     May 1991.      By this resolution the council considered the<\/p>\n
     representation of the plaintiff dated 16th May 1991 and<\/p>\n
     it is resolved that action regarding payment be taken in<\/p>\n
     accordance with rules after obtaining report from the PWD<\/p>\n
     of the government. It is further resolved that decision<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                           – 28 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     regarding       payment      to      the      plaintiff       be      taken       in<\/p>\n
     consultation        with      the     technical         Engineer         of      the<\/p>\n
     government.       It was further resolved that after obtaining<\/p>\n
     opinion    of     the     technical         expert     of    the     government<\/p>\n
     decision regarding increase in the construction rate as<\/p>\n
     per 1991-92 DSR be taken.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     25.     By a letter dated 5th December, 1992 President of<\/p>\n
     the     municipal         council     asked      permission           from       the<\/p>\n
     Collector, Raigad to pay to the plaintiff an amount of<\/p>\n
     Rs.10,10,000\/-.          At this stage, it is worthwhile to make<\/p>\n
     a reference to Exhibit 163.                 Exhibit 163 is the letter<\/p>\n
     dated 6th November, 1988              by the plaintiff to the Chief<\/p>\n
     Engineer     of    the     defendants.          By        this      letter       the<\/p>\n
     plaintiffs      agreed      that     advance     given      to     him    may     be<\/p>\n
     deducted from the running bills so as to enable him to<\/p>\n
     commence work. This writing was given by the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
     after     the     order     passed     by     the    government          granting<\/p>\n
     escalation in rates in construction as per resolution no.<\/p>\n
     57 of 1986 and prior to execution of the agreement dated<\/p>\n
     6th May 1988.            Exhibit 156 is the plaintiff’s letter<\/p>\n
     dated 25th May 1988 under which they have acknowledged<\/p>\n
     payment    of     Rs.6,21,496\/-       towards        running       bills.         Of<\/p>\n
     course this payment is accepted under protest.<\/p>\n
     26.     Exhibit     124 is the letter by the plaintiff to the<\/p>\n
     defendants’ C.E.O. Under which he claimed payment of Rs.<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                           – 29 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     6,98,600.95          under   bill    dated     9th     January        1989.      In<\/p>\n
     pursuance      of     this   bill,    the     plaintiffs       were     paid     an<\/p>\n
     amount    of    Rs.6,21,496\/-        for    which     the    plaintiff        have<\/p>\n
     executed receipt on 25th June, 1986 which is at Exhibit<\/p>\n
     156.<\/p>\n
     27.     It is the specific case of the plaintiff that bill<\/p>\n
     of Rs.10,10,000\/- is due from the defendants as on 30th<\/p>\n
     September, 1988.         Plaintiff’s claim for Rs.10,10,000\/- is<\/p>\n
     falsified in view of the document at Exhibit 124 i.e<\/p>\n
     letter dated 31st January 1989 in which he claimed an<\/p>\n
     amount of Rs.6,98,600\/- as per bill dated 9th January<\/p>\n
     1989.    This claim of the plaintiff in letter dated 31st<\/p>\n
     January 1989 is made over and the same is evidenced by<\/p>\n
     document at Exhibit 156 which is receipt executed by the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff on 25th May 1988 acknowledging Rs.6,21,696\/-<\/p>\n
     under protest.          If the plaintiff as on 31st January 1989<\/p>\n
     claimed Rs.6,58,600\/- and the defendants on 25th May 1988<\/p>\n
     paid    to     the    plaintiff      Rs.6,21,096\/-       then      it    is     not<\/p>\n
     understood how the plaintiff could claim further amount<\/p>\n
     of Rs.10,10,000\/- claiming the same to be outstanding as<\/p>\n
     on 30th September, 1988.               Again at this stage, it is<\/p>\n
     relevant to mention that by document at Exhibit no.163<\/p>\n
     the    plaintiff       admitted      the    advance     given      to    him     by<\/p>\n
     deducting from four running bills.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     29.     In this context, it is the specific case of the<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                – 30 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     defendants that the plaintiff must establish that the<\/p>\n
     claim of the outstanding amount of Rs.10,10,000\/- which<\/p>\n
     must be for the work done by him subsequent to execution<\/p>\n
     of agreement dated 16th May 1988.                          However, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
     have not given any particulars of this bill.                                The C.A.of<\/p>\n
     the plaintiff in para 14 of his cross examination has<\/p>\n
     specifically admitted that he has not produced any more<\/p>\n
     document        in     respect     of      Rs.10,10,000\/-.             He      was    also<\/p>\n
     confronted with letter dated 6th April 1988 at Exhibit<\/p>\n
     163.       A<\/p>\n
                      conjoint        reading         of     the      above      documentary<\/p>\n
     evidence only conclusion that can be arrived at by the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff claim of Rs.10,10,000\/- not towards the work<\/p>\n
     subsequent       to       the    execution         of      the    latter       agreement<\/p>\n
     but,the same is being claimed for the work by way of<\/p>\n
     escalation in the rates of construction for the work done<\/p>\n
     earlier between the period from 1980 to 1984 by way of<\/p>\n
     difference in the rate granted in 1980 and the rates<\/p>\n
     granted    under          the    orders     of     the      government         mentioned<\/p>\n
     above. In fact, it is clear from the government’s order<\/p>\n
     that the rate as per resolution no.57 of 1986 was to be<\/p>\n
     given     for        construction       which         is    to    be     carried        out<\/p>\n
     subsequent           to    the    order       and        not      to     the     earlier<\/p>\n
     construction which was completed prior to the date of the<\/p>\n
     order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     30.     It is true that under Exhibit 139 it was agreed<\/p>\n
     that the amount of Rs.10,10,000\/-                          was to be paid to the<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                           – 31 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     plaintiff. However, this amount was to be given after<\/p>\n
     according necessary approval of the government and that<\/p>\n
     of the Secretary in the Urban Development                         Department.<\/p>\n
     It    appears    that      this   decision     was    influenced         by    the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff’s brother Laxman Sable and his wife who was<\/p>\n
     municipal councillor and who was present in the meeting.<\/p>\n
     On the basis of this document, there is no doubt in our<\/p>\n
     mind    that    the   so    called    decision       is   taken     under      the<\/p>\n
     influence of plaintiff’s             brother and          his wife.           This<\/p>\n
     minutes does not show the particulars of work completed<\/p>\n
     by the plaintiff.           Exhibit 147 is the copy of resolution<\/p>\n
     no.43 passed on 9th May 1991.                 This resolution does not<\/p>\n
     take the plaintiff’s case any further regarding payment<\/p>\n
     of Rs.10,10,000\/- in as much as in this resolution there<\/p>\n
     is     no   reference       regarding     outstanding         bill      of     the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff to the extent of Rs.10,10,000.- and therefore,<\/p>\n
     no relevant can be placed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     31.     Letter   dated      5th   December,      1992      also     cannot      be<\/p>\n
     relied upon by the plaintiff in this regard.                          The said<\/p>\n
     letter is written by the President of the defendants.<\/p>\n
     This letter is sent in pursuant of the                      the resolution<\/p>\n
     dated 9th May 1991 which is at Exhibit 147.                          As stated<\/p>\n
     above, resolution at Exhibit 147 is silent about the so<\/p>\n
     called due payment of Rs.10,10,000\/- to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
     Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot contend that in this<\/p>\n
     letter      President        of    the    defendants         admitted          the<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                – 32 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     plaintiff’s claim for the due payment of Rs.10,10,000\/-.<\/p>\n
     32.    In the light of above we are of the clear opinion<\/p>\n
     that the plaintiffs have failed to establish his claim of<\/p>\n
     Rs.10,10,000\/- from the defendants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     33.    The plaintiff claimed for damages of Rs.17,18,811\/-<\/p>\n
     towards the interest amount which were required to pay to<\/p>\n
     the    bank   due        to    delaying            tactics        adopted       by     the<\/p>\n
     defendants,
\n                     ig Rs.10,20,000\/-towards the rent of centering<\/p>\n
     materials     as    on    the       date        of    the    suit,Rs.3,13,600\/-,<\/p>\n
     towards payment of salary to the gateman and watchman,<\/p>\n
     Rs.65,000\/-towards            refund       of      security       deposit      and     Rs.<\/p>\n
     19,50,000\/- towards profit can be discussed hereinbelow:<\/p>\n
     34.    Let us consider the plaintiff’s claim one by one:<\/p>\n
            The    amount          of     Rs.17,18,811\/-               claimed       towards<\/p>\n
     interest which the plaintiff was required to pay to the<\/p>\n
     bank due to the delay in completing the project.                                     It is<\/p>\n
     case of the plaintiffs that he has taken a loan of Rs.<\/p>\n
     3,50,000\/- from the bank.                  It is the specific case of the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff     that       he    obtained              loan    from     the     Bank      of<\/p>\n
     Maharashtra for doing the work in question. PW1 in para<\/p>\n
     12    specifically       stated       that           there   is     no    documentary<\/p>\n
     evidence in his custody in respect of payment of Rs.<\/p>\n
     17,17,000\/-        to    the       bank    by        the    plaintiff.          He     has<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                              – 33 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     contradicted        the    above        statement      by     saying      that      the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff obtained loan in the name of M\/s Sable and Co.<\/p>\n
     He has specifically admitted that he has not produced any<\/p>\n
     document on record for refund of loan amount or interest.<\/p>\n
     In this regard, he relied upon document at Exhibit 127.<\/p>\n
     However, he admitted that it is not mentioned in document<\/p>\n
     at Exhibit 127            that loan       amount of          Rs.3,50,000\/- and<\/p>\n
     interest thereon is due against the plaintiff Ram Sable.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n     It    is   not    disputed       that     amount      of     Rs.2,70,000\/-          was\n\n     initially\n                       \n                       given     to      the        plaintiff        by      defendants\n\n<\/pre>\n
     immediately upon execution of the first agreement towards<\/p>\n
     advance.     If that is so, it                   was not necessary for the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff        firstly    to     raise       loan    from      the     bank        on<\/p>\n
     undertaking execution of the construction work even if it<\/p>\n
     is assumed for the sake of argument that the respondents<\/p>\n
     obtained said loan from Bank of Maharashtra. However,<\/p>\n
     absolutely there is no material on record to come to the<\/p>\n
     conclusion        that     the    plaintiff           paid      amount       of     Rs.<\/p>\n
     17,00,000\/- towards interest to                    the bank which fact is<\/p>\n
     admitted by the C.A. Of the plaintiff.                          We have already<\/p>\n
     recorded     a    finding        that    the     construction        of     hospital<\/p>\n
     building was delayed because of the greedy attitude of<\/p>\n
     the plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, we are of the<\/p>\n
     clear opinion that           the plaintiff             failed to          prove his<\/p>\n
     claim for damages.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     35.    The       plaintiff        has     claimed       an     amount        of     Rs.<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                         – 34 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     3,13,600\/- towards salaries of watchman and gatekeepers.<\/p>\n
     In para 50 of the cross examination of the respondent;s<\/p>\n
     C.A. he has specifically admitted                    that in        respect of<\/p>\n
     payment of salaries of watchman and gatekeeper, there is<\/p>\n
     no documentary evidence. In this regard, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
     could not produce books of accounts to substantiate his<\/p>\n
     case. Be that as it may under Exhibit 154 the plaintiff<\/p>\n
     agreed that due to rainy reasons, to avoid damages he<\/p>\n
     removed the materials and machines. This was done in the<\/p>\n
     year   1982<\/p>\n
                    itself.      If   that       is    so,     then      it    is     not<\/p>\n
     understood as to why the plaintiff was required to engage<\/p>\n
     watchman      and     gatekeepers.           One      can      understand         if<\/p>\n
     machinery     of     the   plaintiff    is       lying    at    the      site    for<\/p>\n
     protection thereof.          He is required to engage watchman.<\/p>\n
     However,      this     machinery       and       materials       was      already<\/p>\n
     removed.      The plaintiff was not at all required to engage<\/p>\n
     watchman and gatekeepers to protect the same.                         In absence<\/p>\n
     of any material on record, the plaintiff cannot claim any<\/p>\n
     damage under this head.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     36.    The plaintiff has further claimed an amount of Rs.<\/p>\n
     10,20,000\/- towards rent of materials and machineries.<\/p>\n
     In order to          succeed in the plaint, the plaintiff are<\/p>\n
     expected to produce documents of accounts showing that he<\/p>\n
     paid amount for machineries.                 In para 14 C.A. Of the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff specifically deposed that he is not going to<\/p>\n
     produce any document in respect of account of centering<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                               – 35 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     machines claimed in the suit.                     Again in para 11 of the<\/p>\n
     cross examination contradictory statements are made.                                   At<\/p>\n
     one place it is stated that C.A. Of the plaintiff by name<\/p>\n
     Laxman Sable is owner of the material and at another<\/p>\n
     place it is stated that the plaintiff- Ram Sable was<\/p>\n
     owner of the centering machines. This material as per<\/p>\n
     document    at    Exhibit          154    was     already        removed       by     the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff. If that be so, then the question of damages<\/p>\n
     towards      rent       of         machines       does         not       arise        for<\/p>\n
     consideration.\n<\/p>\n
                       ig    The    plaintiff in              our view,         failed to<\/p>\n
     prove this damage under this head.\n<\/p>\n
     37.     The plaintiff claimed Rs.19,50,000\/- towards loss<\/p>\n
     of profit. It is clear that on the basis of 15,60,000\/-<\/p>\n
     under    this    head    it        is    clear    that        on     the    basis      of<\/p>\n
     resolution      no.147       dated       9th    May     1991.      The     resolution<\/p>\n
     however, was subject to approval by the technical officer<\/p>\n
     of the government.            There is no evidence on record that<\/p>\n
     this     resolution          was     subsequently            approved         by      the<\/p>\n
     government and therefore the plaintiff cannot rely upon<\/p>\n
     this resolution in order to claim loss of profit based on<\/p>\n
     DSR of 1990-92.         Be that as it may, we have already held<\/p>\n
     that the plaintiff and not the defendants has committed<\/p>\n
     breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement                                   The<\/p>\n
     plaintiff was only interested in hike in the rate of<\/p>\n
     construction and therefore he stopped the construction.<\/p>\n
     The    plaintiff    even       tried       to     extract        money      from      the<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                             – 36 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     defendants        utilising      his    influential            position        in     the<\/p>\n
     defendant-council.          In that view of the matter, we are of<\/p>\n
     the considered opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled<\/p>\n
     to claim damages under the head loss of profits.<\/p>\n
     38.   Now,    we     will   consider        the        counter       claim      of    the<\/p>\n
     defendants.          The    defendants           made        counter      claim       for<\/p>\n
     recovery     of    Rs.5,18,937\/-.               Out     of    this      amount,       Rs.<\/p>\n
     5,50,000\/- is towards recovery of advance and amount of<\/p>\n
     Rs.63,937\/- is towards cost of the unutilised cement bags<\/p>\n
     by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
     39.   The    evidence       of    the     Engineer           of   the     defendants<\/p>\n
     disclosed that there is no proof for payment of advance.<\/p>\n
     In our view, the defendant’s claim made in the counter<\/p>\n
     claim cannot be granted for want of particulars in the<\/p>\n
     evidence adduced by them on their behalf. The defendants<\/p>\n
     have paid running bills of the plaintiff as on 25th May<\/p>\n
     1988 which is evidenced by                 at document at Exhibit 56.<\/p>\n
     Regarding unutilised cement bags by the plaintiff there<\/p>\n
     are   no    satisfactory         evidence.            In     that     view     of     the<\/p>\n
     matter, we are           not inclined           to entertain            the counter<\/p>\n
     claim of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     40.   Taking over all view of the matter, we are of the<\/p>\n
     view that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the<\/p>\n
     defendants        have   committed       breaches            in   the     agreement,<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                         – 37 –\n<\/p>\n
\n     further    the     plaintiff   failed       to     prove      his     claim      for<\/p>\n
     damages.     At the same time, the defendants also failed to<\/p>\n
     prove its counter claim.            We accordingly, quash and set<\/p>\n
     aside the impugned judgment of the lower court. Special<\/p>\n
     Civil Suit No.91 of 1992 on the file of the Civil Judge,<\/p>\n
     Sr.Division, Panvel         is dismissed with costs.                      Counter<\/p>\n
     claim of defendants also stands dismissed.<\/p>\n
     41.    This Court admitted the First Appeal on 17th July,<\/p>\n
     1998. and stay was granted to the effect and operation of<\/p>\n
     the impugned judgment and decree on the condition that<\/p>\n
     the defendants shall deposit the entire decreetal amount<\/p>\n
     of    Rs.75,00,000\/-.      This      amount         was     allowed        to     be<\/p>\n
     withdrawn     by     the   plaintiff         after         furnishing           bank<\/p>\n
     guarantee.       The    plaintiff pursuant             to this        order has<\/p>\n
     withdrawn     the      decreetal     amount         on     furnishing           bank<\/p>\n
     guarantee     Since we have dismissed the suit the plaintiff<\/p>\n
     is directed to re-deposit the said amount                       in this court<\/p>\n
     within a period of eight weeks from today.<\/p>\n
     R.V.More, J                                               P.B.Majmudar, J\n\n\n\n\n                                                      ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n            - 38 -\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n                    \n                   \n          \n       \n      \n      \n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                    ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:14:02 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Khopoli Municipal Council } vs Smt Chanda R.Sable } on 16 October, 2009 Bench: P. B. Majmudar, R. V. More – 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.433 OF 1998 1. Khopoli Municipal Council } at and Post: Khopoli Taluka } Taluka Khalapur,District […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKhopoli Municipal Council } vs Smt Chanda R.Sable } on 16 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Khopoli Municipal Council } vs Smt Chanda R.Sable } on 16 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-10T10:58:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"42 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Khopoli Municipal Council } vs Smt Chanda R.Sable } on 16 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-10T10:58:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":8259,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Khopoli Municipal Council } vs Smt Chanda R.Sable } on 16 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-10T10:58:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Khopoli Municipal Council } vs Smt Chanda R.Sable } on 16 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Khopoli Municipal Council } vs Smt Chanda R.Sable } on 16 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Khopoli Municipal Council } vs Smt Chanda R.Sable } on 16 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-10T10:58:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"42 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Khopoli Municipal Council } vs Smt Chanda R.Sable } on 16 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-10T10:58:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009"},"wordCount":8259,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009","name":"Khopoli Municipal Council } vs Smt Chanda R.Sable } on 16 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-10T10:58:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khopoli-municipal-council-vs-smt-chanda-r-sable-on-16-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Khopoli Municipal Council } vs Smt Chanda R.Sable } on 16 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43345","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43345"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43345\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}