On merits, ultimately, the appellant was awarded a sum of Rs.87,01,200/ together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.
This was appealed against by the appellant, which appeal substantially met the same fate by the order dated 10.07.2000, by which the Writ Appeal was dismissed, and it was stated that an adequate alternative remedy existed by way of arbitration.
Being dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, both the appellant as well as the State filed appeals.
This legal numberice was followed by two other letters, one dated 25.01.2000, and the other dated 29.01.2000.
In between the learned Single Judges judgment and the Division Bench judgment dismissing the Writ Appeal, the appellant sent a legal numberice dated 14.01.2000 in which the appellant made it clear that he had companypleted the work to the extent of Rs.1,25,00,000/ in spite of delay in approving the pre level work and fitness of the plant.
The learned Additional District Judge by his judgment dated 29.06.2007 found that there was substantial companypliance of section 80 CPC, given the fact that the numberice dated 14.01.2000 was clearly sent to the three authorities in question and served on them.
After setting out the fact that the partial CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4495 4496 OF 2019 termination was bad in law, the appellant prayed for a declaration that the partial termination order dated 16.12.1999 is illegal and void and that a sum of Rs.3.30 crores with interest of 15 per cent per annum be granted to him as these were the amounts owing to him by the State.
It was for this reason that he stated that it was necessary for him to have gone to the High Court by way of a Writ Petition.
Despite this, an order of 16.12.1999 was made even before the said extension came CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4495 4496 OF 2019 to an end, by which the companytract was partially terminated.
He also mentioned that the original period of 18 months was extended up to 30.03.2000 for the reason that there was delay on the part of the Department.
On 15.10.1997, the appellant and respondent No.2 entered into an agreement for strengthening the existing two lane pavement of NH7 from a particular kilometer point from Madurai to Kanyakumari.
The immediate reason why the appellant had to knock at the doors of the High Court was an order dated 16.12.1999 passed by the Superintending Engineer partially terminating the companytract on the ground that the plaintiff appellant has number shown sufficient progress in the execution of the said work.
2/2002 on 12.09.2002 in the Court of the Special Judge at Virudhunagar.
The plaintiff appellant first filed a Writ Petition before the Madras High Court, which, by a judgment dated 24.12.1999, rejected the Writ Petition, stating that an adequate alternative remedy existed in terms of filing of a Civil Suit.
It is further stated that the Writ Petition was dismissed on 24.12.1999 and that the appellant had decided to file a Writ Appeal against the said order.
Since the Writ Appeal had also been dismissed and since the remedy of arbitration companyld number be availed of as claims of above Rs.2 lakhs were number arbitrable, but ought to be decided in a Civil Suit, the appellant filed O.S. No.
As per the agreement, the work ought to have been companypleted in 18 Signature Not Verifiedmonths.
After citing case law, the learned Additional District Judge found that there was a substantial companypliance with the provisions of section 80 CPC.
The letter dated 29.01.2000 went on to state that he is challenging the partial termination of the companytract and enclosing a list of payments due for the work, which, at that point of time, amounted to a sum of Rs.88.06 lakhs.
F. NARIMAN, J. Leave granted.
The present appeals relate to whether a numberice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure CPC has been given to the State of Tamil Nadu in terms of the Section or in substantial companypliance thereof.
The appellant is a Government Contractor who has executed various works in the National Highways, P.W.D. and Electricity Board.
The site was handed over to the appellant on Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date 2019.05.13 123815 IST Reason 20.10.1997, but, in the companyrse of the progress of work, the appellant stated that due to delay caused by the CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4495 4496 OF 2019 respondents, he was number able to progress and companyplete the work in time.
Further, the cause of action and reliefs claimed were also substantially set out both in the numberice as well as in the letter dated 29.01.2000 already referred to hereinabove.
