{"id":61859,"date":"2002-07-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002"},"modified":"2016-04-08T09:06:52","modified_gmt":"2016-04-08T03:36:52","slug":"preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002","title":{"rendered":"Preetam Singh (Died) vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 11 July, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Preetam Singh (Died) vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 11 July, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 11\/07\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.JAGADEESAN\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN\n\nO.S.A.NO.6 OF 1994\n\n1. Preetam Singh (died)\n2. Anitha, P.C.\n3. Vikram Singh Chhabria                .... Appellants\n        Appellants No.2 and 3 were\nbrought on record as legal\nrepresentatives of deceased first\nappellant as per orders in C.M.P.No.\n4368 of 2002 dated 15.4.2002.\n\nVersus\n\nTamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board\nNo.5, Kamarajar Salai\nMadras-600 005.                                 .... Respondent\n\n        Prayer:  Original Side Appeal filed against the  judgment  and  decree\ndated 14.6.1993  made  in  C.S.No.34  of  1984  by the Honourable Mr.  Justice\nGovardhan.\n\n!For Appellants :  Mr.V.S.Subramanian\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.M.Muthappan for\n                Mr.K.Venkataramana\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J.\n<\/p>\n
        The above appeal is directed against the judgment and  decree  of  the
\nlearned  trial  Judge dated 14.6.1993 made in C.S.No.34 of 1984 on the file of
\nthis Court, whereby the learned Single Judge non-suited the appellant for  the
\nrelief  claimed  in  the  suit,  in  the  sense,  for  a  decree directing the
\ndefendant\/respondent herein  to  pay  to  the  appellant\/plaintiff  a  sum  of
\nRs.2,45,880.41ps  with  interest on Rs.1,25,206.92 ps at 10 per cent per annum
\nfrom the date of plaint till the date of realisation.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The appellant laid the suit for the said relief on the ground that
\nthe appellant is one of the leading suppliers of pipes and accessories and the
\ndefendant used to place orders for supply of  several  materials  required  by
\nthem.   At  times,  without  calling  for tenders, the defendant used to place
\norders on the plaintiff.  On certain other occasions, the defendant  call  for
\ntenders.  After becoming successful tenderer, the plaintiff used to supply the
\nmaterials  as  per  the  tender and there had been several instances where the
\ngoods were used to be supplied on oral instructions to the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  It is the  further  case  of  the  appellant\/  plaintiff  that  in
\npursuance of a call for tenders by the defendant, the plaintiff had offered on
\n17.11.1978 to  supply  G.I.    pipes  and  specials  and  deposited  a  sum of
\nRs.2,300\/- as Earnest  Money  Deposit  as  per  the  tender  condition.    The
\ndefendant accepted the offer for supply of goods to the value of Rs.3,18,279\/-
\nand  demanded  a  further  deposit  of  Rs.7,250\/- towards additional security
\ndeposit.  The appellant\/plaintiff has given a  Bank  Guarantee  for  the  said
\namount.   The  plaintiff also supplied some of the materials as per the tender
\nand sent an invoice for a sum of Rs.28,243.47ps.  The plaintiff also  supplied
\nmaterials  worth  about Rs.5,607.56 and Rs.5,544.12ps under different invoices
\nand further supplies were also made for a sum of Rs.3,215.87ps  on  23.4.1979.
\nWhile  that  being  so, the Executive Engineer of the defendant Board informed
\nthat a sum of Rs.31,828\/- being ten  per  cent  of  the  total  value  of  the
\ncontract was  withheld  as  a  penalty  for default in making the supply.  The
\nplaintiff was also asked to show cause why the name of  the  plaintiff  should
\nnot be  recommended  for  being  black-listed.    The  agreement  between  the
\nplaintiff and the defendant did not provide any clause with reference to price
\nescalation and therefore neither valid nor enforceable.   Even  assuming  that
\nthe  agreement  is a valid one, the defendant should have ascertained the loss
\nsuffered immediately.  Without ascertaining the  loss,  the  defendant  cannot
\nwithheld or  forfeit  the  amount  deposited  by the plaintiff.  It is further
\ncontended  that  there  cannot  be  two  penalties  viz.,  black-listing   and
\nimposition  of  fine  and  forfeiture  of Earnest Money Deposit and Additional
\nsecurity deposit.  The conditions to that effect in the agreement is  invalid.
\nEven  then,  the  plaintiff is entitled to the relief from the penal clause in
\nlaw.  The plaintiff’s money cannot be withheld nor can the earnest  money  and
\nadditional security deposit forfeited.  The defendant not having purchased any
\nmaterials  at  the  risk and cost of the plaintiff is not entitled to withheld
\nany amount.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Likewise, pursuant to a tender, the plaintiff offered on  5.3.1979
\nto  supply  GI  pipes  and  specials and deposited bank guarantee for a sum of
\nRs.7,500\/- towards Earnest Money deposit and agreement was also entered  into.
\nThe  plaintiff supplied various materials under 3 invoices for Rs.23,805.45ps,
\nRs.7,640.85ps and Rs.21,349.37ps.  The appellant also supplied materials under
\ndifferent invoices on three other occasions.  However, the Executive  Engineer
\nof  the  defendant  informed  the plaintiff that a sum of Rs.51,984\/- being 10
\npercent of the value of the agreement has been  withheld  and  has  threatened
\npenal action  including black-listing.  In respect of the three tenders due on
\n20.3.19 79, the plaintiff submitted his offers dated 19.3.1979  together  with
\nearnest money deposits by way of bank guarantees for Rs.1500\/-, Rs.38 00\/- and
\nRs.2600\/- respectively.    The  defendant  required the plaintiff to remit the
\nadditional security deposit and also called for explanation as to  the  reason
\nfor the delay in the execution of the agreement.  A sum of Rs.1,57,686.18ps is
\ndue and  payable  by  the  defendant  towards the goods supplied.  Towards the
\nearnest money deposit and additional security deposit, a sum of Rs.39,311\/- is
\ndue to the plaintiff.  The plaintiff is also entitled to interest on the  said
\namount.   The  plaintiff  is  entitled  for  a  sum  of  Rs.1,95,206.92ps with
\nsubsequent interest from the date of plaint on  Rs.1,57,686.18ps  towards  the
\nearnest money  deposit  and  additional  security  deposit.   The defendant is
\nliable to pay the plaintiff a sum  of  Rs.39,311\/-  and  interest  of  Rs.11,3
\n62.49ps from  24.7.1980 till the date of plaint.  Hence, the suit for recovery
\nof the amount.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The  suit  was  contested  by  filing  written  statement  by  the
\ndefendant, wherein it was contended inter alia that the defendant never placed
\noral order to supply materials without calling for tender.  Only after calling
\nfor  tender  and  execution  of  necessary  agreement thereto, orders would be
\npassed for supply of materials.  It is open to the plaintiff  to  claim  money
\nfor  the  supply effected as per the agreement entered into between them after
\nproducing the relevant records and vouchers signed by the authorities  of  the
\ndefendant.   NO  claim can be made on the basis of the plaintiff’s own voucher
\nor delivery note.  For supply of G.I.  pipes and specials  to  M.G.R.    Nagar
\nScheme,  the  plaintiff  has  become  successful  tenderer  for  the  value of
\nRs.3,18,279\/-.  As per the agreement, the price shall be firm through out  the
\nperiod of  supply as the time fixed was only one month.  The plaintiff did not
\nsupply the material as per the agreement but supplied only 14 percent  of  the
\ntotal quantity.    In  spite  of  repeated demands made, the plaintiff did not
\nadhere to the time schedule and made the supply, which resulted  in  issue  of
\nshow cause notice.  The agreement entered into is binding on the parties.  The
\ndefendant invoked  the  penal  clause  since  there  was  a breach.  The black
\nlisting the contractor and the enforcement of penal clause  in  the  agreement
\nare totally  two  different  acts.    Likewise,  the  plaintiff has become the
\nsuccessful tenderer for supply of G.I Spun pipes and specials to M.G.R.  Nagar
\nScheme and an agreement to the value of Rs.5,19,842\/- was entered into.   Here
\nalso,  as  per  the terms of the agreement, the price was to be firm excepting
\nfor variations in J.PC price of  piyrion  prevailing  on  the  date  of  their
\ntender.  The plaintiff did not commence supply and the plaintiff ought to have
\ncompleted  supply  of the materials within one month, but had supplied only 22
\npercent after a long interval of time.  The plaintiff  himself  has  suggested
\nfor cancellation  of  the  agreement.    The breach committed by the plaintiff
\ncalled for penalty and as such 10 percent of the value of  the  agreement  was
\nwithheld.  In respect of supply of G.I.  pipes and specials for Annai Sivagami
\nNagar  for  value  of Rs.2,52,3 65\/- plus taxes Ammaniammal Nagar for value of
\nRs.1,26,318\/- plus taxes Sivagami Ammaiyar Nagar for  value  of  Rs.1,26,318\/-
\nplus  taxes,  the  plaintiff  was  the  successful  tenderer, but breached the
\ncontract\/ tender.  Hence, the earnest money deposit was forfeited as  per  the
\nterms of the tender.  The claim of the plaintiff is unsustainable.  with these
\nallegations, the defendant\/respondent herein sought for dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  The learned Judge after taking into consideration of the materials
\nplaced  and  also  after  taking into consideration of the arguments advanced,
\nnon-suited the plaintiff\/appellant herein for the relief of  recovery  of  the
\namount,  which  has been forfeited by the defendant Board for violation of the
\ntender conditions.  The correctness of the said order is put in issue  in  the
\npresent appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has reiterated the
\nvery  same contentions raised before the learned Judge for supply of materials
\non oral orders.  For that purpose, he has relied on certain vouchers,  wherein
\nthe  order  numbers  are  quoted  and in certain other vouchers, no such order
\nnumber was mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Though the vouchers and delivery challans were raised in favour of
\nthe respondent\/defendant, there is no material made  available  on  record  to
\nprove  that  the  goods  were supplied to the defendant on oral instruction or
\norders.  The defendant being a statutory body, cannot place  oral  orders  but
\nbound  to  call  for  tenders and place orders only after accepting the lowest
\ntender.  Unless the plaintiff is able to prove that the supply has  been  made
\non  oral  orders or directions as contended by them by clear evidence that the
\ndefendant used to receive the goods on oral orders, it  cannot  be  sustained.
\nIn the absence of any material evidence, and in the light of the oral evidence
\nof P.W.1, which has been denied by the defendant, it is not possible to accept
\nthe  case  of  the  appellant\/plaintiff  that  the  supply  of goods were made
\npursuant to the oral instructions or orders made by the  respondent\/defendant.
\nHence,  the  claim made as to the supply of materials on oral orders cannot at
\nall be sustained and the rejection of the same by the trial  Judge  cannot  at
\nall be complained off.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   The  learned  counsel  appearing  for the appellant relied on the
\ndecisions of SHAPOOR FREDOOM MAZDA VS.    DURGA  PROSAD  CHAMARIA  AND  OTHERS
\nreported in  AIR  1961  SUPREME  COURT  1236,  M\/S.L.C.MILLS  VS.    ALUMINIUM
\nCORPORATION OF INDIA reported in 1971 SUPREME COURT 1482 and P.D.  PILLAI  VS.
\nKALIYANIKUTTY  AMMA  reported  in  AIR  1995  KERALA 78 FULL BENCH in order to
\nsubstantiate  his  contention  that   the   goods   were   supplied   to   the
\ndefendant\/respondent  on  oral  orders placed by them and contended that there
\nwas a jural relationship of debtor and creditor.  In those cases, it was  held
\nthat  the acknowledgement as prescribed under Section 19 of the Limitation Act
\nmerely renews the date.  A mere acknowledgement of the liability in respect of
\nthe right in question is enough.  It need not be accompanied by a  promise  to
\npay either  expressly  or  even  implication.    So far as the present case is
\nconcerned, as stated already, there is absolutely no material  to  prove  that
\nsupply of material by the appellant\/plaintiff has been made on the oral orders
\nor directions  and  the  supply  has  been  received by the defendant.  In the
\nabsence of any material to prove that supply has been made  to  the  defendant
\nexcept  the  evidence  of  P.W.1,  which  has been categorically denied by the
\ndefendant, the reliance of the above three judgements would  not  in  any  way
\nadvance the case of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   Yet  another  point,  which  was  very  vehemently argued by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant is that the defendant  is  not  entitled  to
\nwithhold  any amount in view of Section 74 of the Contract Act without proving
\nthe actual loss or damage caused.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  There is no dispute as to the appellant was a  successful  bidder
\nin  respect  of  three  tenders  and  the earnest money deposit and additional
\nsecurity deposit deposited by the appellant\/plaintiff in accordance  with  the
\nterms  and  conditions  of  the  tender\/agreement entered into pursuant to the
\ntender and also the Madras Detailed Standard Specifications and the clauses in
\nthe standard preliminary specification would also form part of the  agreement,
\nwhich  provides  for  forfeiture of earnest money deposit, additional security
\ndeposit and ten percent of the value of the contract in case of default.    In
\nthe  admitted  factual  position, it was contended by the learned counsel that
\nunless or otherwise the actual loss or damage is proved, the defendant  cannot
\nforfeit the  same  in  view  of  Section  74  of the Indian Contract Act.  The
\nheading under which Section 34 was arrayed is  of  consequence  of  breach  of
\ncontract.  Section 74 of the Contract Act provides that
\n“when  a  contract  has  been broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the
\namount be paid in case of such breach, or if the contract contains  any  other
\nstipulation  by  way  of  penalty,  the  party  complaining  of  the breach is
\nentitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have  been  caused
\nthereby,  to  receive  from  the  party who has broken the contract reasonable
\ncompensation not exceeding the amount so named or, as the  case  may  be,  the
\npenalty stipulated for.”\n<\/p>\n
        12.  As per the above said provision, the party faced with a breach of
\ncontract  is  not  compelled to prove the extent of loss or damage suffered by
\nhim in fact or actually.  He need not prove in an exact manner the  extent  of
\nreal loss  or  damages  suffered  by him.  Even if he fails to prove it, Court
\ncannot throw out his case on that ground,  but  must  proceed  to  assess  the
\nreasonable compensation, which is to be awarded to him on the materials before
\nthe  Court  and subject to the limit of the amount stipulated in the contract.
\nThere may be cases where the actual loss or  damage  is  incapable  of  proof.
\nFacts  of  such  case  may  be so complicated that it might be difficult for a
\nparty to prove the actual extent of loss or damage.  The  above  provision  of
\nthe Contract Act thus exempt such a party from such responsibility and enables
\nhim  to  claim  compensation in spite of not proving the actual extent of loss
\nand damages.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  The scope of Section 74 has been explained in  several  cases  by
\nthe Supreme Court.    In FATEH CHAND VS.  BALKISHAN DASS reported in AIR 1 963
\nSUPREME COURT 1405, while explaining the background of Section 7 4 of the Act,
\nthe Supreme Court observed thus:\n<\/p>\n
        “In assessing damages the Court has,  subject  to  the  limit  of  the
\npenalty  stipulated,  jurisdiction  to  award  such  compensation  as it deems
\nreasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case.    Jurisdiction
\nof  the  Court  to  award  compensation  in  case  of  breach  of  contract is
\nunqualified except as to the maximum stipulated; but compensation  has  to  be
\nreasonable,  and  that  imposes  upon  the  Court  duty  to award compensation
\naccording to settled principles.    The  Section  undoubtedly  says  that  the
\naggrieved  party  is  entitled  to receive compensation from the party who has
\nbroken the contract, whether or not actual damage or loss is  proved  to  have
\nbeen caused  by the breach.  Thereby it merely dispenses with proof of “actual
\nloss or damage”, it does  not  justify  the  award  of  compensation  when  in
\nconsequence  of  the  breach  no  legal  injury  at  all has resulted, because
\ncompensation for breach of contract can be awarded to make good loss or damage
\nwhich naturally arose in the usual course of things, or which the parties knew
\nwhen they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  In MAULA BUX VS.  UNION OF INDIA reported  in  AIR  1970  SUPREME
\nCOURT 1955, the Supreme Court held thus:\n<\/p>\n
        “Under  the  terms  of  the  agreements  the  amounts deposited by the
\nplaintiff as security for due performance  of  the  contracts  were  to  stand
\nforfeited in case the plaintiff neglected to perform his part of the contract.
\nThe  High  Court observed that the deposits so made may be regarded as earnest
\nmoney.  But that view cannot be accepted.  According to Earl  Jowitt  in  “The
\nDictionary of English Law” at p 689:  “Giving an earnest or earnest-money is a
\nmode  of  signifying assent to a contract of sale or the like by giving to the
\nvendor a nominal sum ( e.g.  A shilling) as a token that the  parties  are  in
\nearnest or have made up their minds.” As observed by the Judicial Committee in
\nChiranjit Singh Vs.  Har Swarup (AIR 1926 P C.1).\n<\/p>\n
        “Earnest Money is part of the purchase price when the transaction goes
\nforward  it  is  forfeited when the transaction falls through by reason of the
\nfault or failure of the vendee.\n<\/p>\n
In the present case the deposit was  made  not  of  a  sum  of  money  by  the
\npurchaser  to  be  applied towards part payment of the price when the contract
\nwas completed and till then as evidencing an intention  on  the  part  of  the
\npurchaser to  buy  property  or  goods.   Here the plaintiff had deposited the
\namounts claimed as security for guaranteeing due performance of the contracts.
\nSuch deposits cannot be regarded as earnest-money.”\n<\/p>\n
        In this case also the EMD was deposited at the time of tender.  Though
\nthe nomenclature is so stated it cannot be regarded as earnest money  and  the
\namount can only be claimed as security for guaranteeing due performance of the
\ncontract.   This is also fortified by calling for the plaintiff to deposit the
\nadditional security amount depending upon the value of the contract.  The word
\nadditional security connotes what was deposited by the  plaintiff  as  EMD  is
\nonly a security.  The Supreme Court further proceeds as follows:
\n“It is true that in every case of breach of
\ncontract  the  person  aggrieved by the breach is not required to prove actual
\nloss or damage suffered by him before he can claim a decree and the  Court  is
\ncompetent to award reasonable compensation in case of breach even if no actual
\ndamage  is  proved  to  have  been  suffered  in  consequence of the breach of
\ncontract.  But the expression “Whether or not actual damage or loss is  proved
\nto  have  been  caused  thereby”  is  intended  to  cover different classes of
\ncontracts which come before the Courts.  In case of breach of  some  contracts
\nit may be impossible for the Court to assess compensation arising from breach,
\nwhile  in  other  cases  compensation  can  be  calculated  in accordance with
\nestablished rules.  Where the Court is unable to assess the compensation,  the
\nsum  named  by  the parties if it be regarded as a genuine pre-estimate may be
\ntaken into consideration as the measure of reasonable compensation, but not if
\nthe sum named is in the nature of a penalty.  Where loss in terms of money can
\nbe determined, the party claiming compensation must prove the loss suffered by
\nhim.”\n<\/p>\n
        So far as the present case is concerned, there is no pleading  in  the
\nplaint  to  the  effect  that the actual damage caused has to be proved or the
\ndefendant never sustained any damage.  As stated already, in  this  case,  the
\ndamage  or  actual  loss  caused  can  not  be  easily  proved  because of the
\ncomplicity of contracts ente red into  for  the  project  of  construction  of
\ntenements  with  various  persons  and  the  delay  caused by the plaintiff in
\nnon-supplying  the  material  caused  delay  in  the  chain  of  contracts  in
\ncompleting the project at every stage.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  In  SHREE  HANUMAN  COTTON  MILLS AND ANOTHER VS.  TATA AIR CRAFT
\nLTD.  REPORTED IN AIR 1970 SUPREME COURT 1986, the Supreme Court held that  if
\nthe  person  contesting  the  forfeiture  of  earnest  money  deposit  or  the
\nadditional  security  deposit  as  unreasonable,  they  should  have  laid   a
\nfoundation  for  the  same by raising appropriate pleas and also let in proper
\nevidence regarding the same so that the respondent would have  an  opportunity
\nof making such claim.  Admittedly, in the case on hand, no such foundation has
\nbeen laid as to unreasonableness except saying that the forfeiture is invalid.
\nFor  be tter clarity , we feel it is appropriate to refer the relevant passage
\nof the Supreme Court:\n<\/p>\n
        “31.  The learned Attorney General very strongly urged that the  pleas
\ncovered by the second contention of the appellant had never been raised in the
\npleadings nor  in  the contentions urged before the High Court.  The questions
\nof the quantum of earnest deposit which was forfeited  being  unreasonable  or
\nthe  forfeiture  being by way of penalty, were never raised by the appellants.
\nThe Attorney General also pointed out that as noted  by  the  High  Court  the
\nappellants led no evidence at all and after abandoning the various pleas taken
\nin  the  plaint,  the only question pressed before the High Court was that the
\ndeposit was not by way of earnest and hence the amount could not be forfeited.
\nUnless  the  appellants  had  pleaded   and   established   that   there   was
\nunreasonableness  attached  to  the  amount required to be deposited under the
\ncontract or that the clause regarding forfeiture amounted to a stipulation  by
\nway  of a penalty the respondents had no opportunity to satisfy the Court that
\nno question of unreasonableness or the stipulation being  by  way  of  penalty
\narises.   He  further urged that the question of unreasonableness or otherwise
\nregarding earnest money does not at all arise when it is  forfeited  according
\nto the terms of the contract.\n<\/p>\n
        32.   In  our  opinion the learned Attorney General is well founded in
\nhis contention that the appellants raised no such contentions covered  by  the
\nsecond point,  noted above.  It is therefore unnecessary for us to go into the
\nquestion as to whether the amount deposited by the appellants, in this case by
\nway of earnest and forfeited as such, can be considered to  be  reasonable  or
\nnot.   We  express  no  opinion  on  the question as to whether the element of
\nunreasonableness can ever be considered regarding the forfeiture of an  amount
\ndeposited  by  way  of  earnest and if so what are the necessary factors to be
\ntaken into account in considering  the  reasonableness  or  otherwise  of  the
\namount deposited  by  way  of  earnest.  If the appellants were contesting the
\nclaim on any such grounds, they should have laid the foundation for  the  same
\nby  raising appropriate pleas and also led proper evidence regarding the same,
\nso that the respondents would have  had  an  opportunity  of  meeting  such  a
\nclaim.”\n<\/p>\n
        16.  In UNION  OF  INDIA  VS.  RAMPUR DISTELLERY AND CHEMICAL CO.  LTD
\nreported in AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 1098, the principle as enunciated in  MAULA
\nBUX VS.    UNION  OF  INDIA  reported  in AIR 1970 SUPREME COURT 1955 has been
\naccepted on the ground that the contract was of a nature  in  which  the  loss
\nalleged to  have  been caused could have been proved.  But on the facts of the
\ncase,  it  was  found  that  subsequently,  the  rum  contract  for  has  been
\nsubsequently supplied with accepted quality.  From the above said judgment, it
\nis  clear  that if the extent of loss or damages sustained is capable of being
\nproved, the same has to be proved by the person, who claims the  amount.    If
\nthe  quantification  of  loss  or  damage is not possible, the party, who have
\nsuffered on account of the breach is not without  any  remedy  and  claim  the
\namount as agreed to is found reasonable, he is entitled for.\n<\/p>\n
        17.   So  far  as  the present case is concerned, the defendant is the
\nstatutory body and the conditions for payment of earnest money deposit as well
\nas additional security deposit and withholding of ten percent of the value  of
\nthe contract  if the contractor breached the contract is standard for all.  It
\nis not thrusted or imposed on the appellant alone.  Further, in this case, the
\nnature of the contract is also supply of materials, for the purpose of putting
\nup of tenements and construction and laying down the pipe line  and  sewerage.
\nFor  that  purpose,  several  independent  contracts have been entered into as
\nstated above.  If the supply is delayed by breach of time schedule, it  causes
\ndelay  in  all  the  chain of subsequent stages in the project and that is the
\nreason the loss on breach has been reasonably pre-determined and mentioned  in
\nthe tender  and the agreement itself.  Because of the complicity of the nature
\nof the contract in the entire project, the exact loss and exact damages in the
\ncontract of the disputed nature cannot be assessed with certainty.  Hence,  we
\nare  of  the  view that the contention that the actual loss and actual damages
\nhave to be proved as raised by the appellant is not sustainable and  as  such,
\nwe  find  no  infirmity  in the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge
\nwhile considering the material placed and also the evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        In the result, the Original side Appeal is dismissed.  However,  there
\nshall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
        (S.J.,J.) (K.R.P.,J.)
\n                                        11.07.2002
\nWebsite:  Yes
\nIndex:  Yes
\nusk<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
The Sub Asst.Registrar
\nOriginal Side
\nHigh Court
\nMadras.\n<\/p>\n
S.JAGADEESAN,J.\n<\/p>\n
AND
\nK.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT IN
\nO.S.A.No.6 OF 1994<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Preetam Singh (Died) vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 11 July, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11\/07\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.JAGADEESAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN O.S.A.NO.6 OF 1994 1. Preetam Singh (died) 2. Anitha, P.C. 3. Vikram Singh Chhabria …. Appellants Appellants No.2 […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61859","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPreetam Singh (Died) vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 11 July, 2002 - 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\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Preetam Singh (Died) vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 11 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-08T03:36:52+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Preetam Singh (Died) vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 11 July, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-08T03:36:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002\"},\"wordCount\":4045,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002\",\"name\":\"Preetam Singh (Died) vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 11 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-08T03:36:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Preetam Singh (Died) vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 11 July, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Preetam Singh (Died) vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 11 July, 2002 - 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\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Preetam Singh (Died) vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 11 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-08T03:36:52+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Preetam Singh (Died) vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 11 July, 2002","datePublished":"2002-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-08T03:36:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002"},"wordCount":4045,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002","name":"Preetam Singh (Died) vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 11 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-08T03:36:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preetam-singh-died-vs-tamil-nadu-slum-clearance-board-on-11-july-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Preetam Singh (Died) vs Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 11 July, 2002"}]},{"@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\/61859","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=61859"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61859\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61859"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61859"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61859"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}