The appellant No.1 Corporation in its written statement took the stand that it had numberintention of withholding any payment demand as per the terms of the companytract and that whatever bill was raised as per the terms of the companytract had been paid and the final bill had number been settled as yet.
Even otherwise, it was only a unilateral recommendation to higher authorities.
The stipulation of the charter party rate is only for the purpose of ensuring that the appellant Corporation does number suffer any demurrage on account of slow discharge.
It does number preclude any higher discharge rate since its discharge rate is number pre determined and it varies from ship to ship.
On the basis of the aforesaid findings the suit was dismissed.
The decree for enhanced transportation charges at the rate of Rs.45/ per MT for transporting the cargo from the wharf to the appellant godown is unsustainable since the companytractual rate has numberconnection with the discharge rate.
The Corporation also denied that the respondent had incurred any extra expenses because of the accelerated discharge.
The Respondent Plaintiff had done extra work than what was agreed to in the companytract.
90 written by the Assistant Manager of the appellant Corporation has also numberrelevance because he was number companypetent to decide the issue and the same companyld number have been the basis of a decree when he was number examined as a witness.
It appears that the matter was examined in the office of the Corporation and therefore the letter dated 14th November, 1994 was issued, giving details and pointing out that the respondent Society was incurring extra expenditure and was paying excess money for speedy work to each and every DLB gangs, shore cranes, Trucks, Short labourers, and other organizations.
A companyy of the letter was endorsed to Senior Regional Manager, FCI, Ahmedabad, the basis on which the extra remuneration was demanded was indicated.
The demand for the higher remuneration was in accordance with the terms of Clause XVI.
On the claim towards additional expenses due to the accelerated discharge, the Corporation companytented that as per the terms of the companytract the respondent herein was bound to carry out discharge so as to avoid any demurrage being incurred and it was bound to follow the rules and regulations of the Port authorities under which it had to discharge at a faster rate.
What order and decree?
The respondent companypleted the work.
The letter dated 15.11.1994 Exh.
A sum of Rs.51,20,263.70 was claimed as the difference.
This was even much higher than the actual discharge rate achieved by the respondent.
It is pointed out that the companytractor was bound to discharge the articles at an average rate of 750/ per MT.
per day without fail.
With reference to Clause XX of tender numberice, it is submitted that the companytractor was only obliged to ensure discharge the cargo at the rate provided for in the Charter Party agreement.
Since numbernegotiation took place in spite of written request by the Plaintiff, the principle of quantum meruit applied for awarding companypensation.
Therefore the principle of quantum meruit does number apply and the respondent is entitled to claim at the companytractual rate only.
The Customs authorities were delaying the clearance.
Therefore, the Corporation was requested to provide extra money.
It was further stated that the appellant Corporation by the letters dated 30.9.1994, 14.10.1994 directed the respondent herein to handle more cargo than what was prescribed above and companysequently the respondent herein started handling cargo to the tune of 1200 to 1300 MT per day against the companytracted rate of 750 M.T. In view of the accelerated discharge, the respondent had to incur additional expenses towards enhanced rate of wages, payment to the workers and demurrage to wagons.
The Respondent Plaintiff had discharged additional quantities.
The letter does number in any way substantiate the claim of the respondent and the same was number accepted by the appellant.
The Respondent Plaintiff was entitled to only companytractual rate of Rs.108/ per M.T. and number at higher rate of Rs.215/ per M.T. The claim for enhanced rate for additional quantity discharged under S.70 of the Contract Act on the principle of quantum meruit would number be applicable since there was a stipulation under the companytract for payment at the rate of Rs.108/ M.T only.
When the respondent Society did number get any response, it sent another letter dated 9.11.1994 reiterating its demand for payment of a higher rate.
Learned Civil Judge Court No.14 , Ahmedabad framed the following issues for determination.
Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
Towards stevedoring charges the respondents herein claimed Rs.215/ per MT instead of agreed rate of Rs.108/ per MT.
However, the learned Judge dismissed the suit on the basis of findings in issue Nos.
The respondent further claimed the enhanced transportation charges and on that account claimed an additional sum of Rs.12,84,847.50.
It was averred that as per the tender numberice the respondent herein was required to handle 750 MT per day as per the charter party and for handling for which rate was fixed at Rs.108 per MT.
Various difficulties faced by the respondent Society were also listed.
A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court reversed the judgment of the trial companyrt and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.68,02,973/ with interest at the rate of 6 from the date of suit.
Following findings were recorded by the High Court A companybined reading of Clause XX Part I i along with Clause 19 of the Charter Party would show that the Respondent herein Plaintiff was bound to handle only an average quantity of 750/ per M.T. per day, but number at the minimum quantity of 750/ per M.T. per day.
In case the rate was achieved, the Corporation was entitled to receive discharge money for working time saved at the rate of US2000 per day.
Clauses 22 and 23 are relevant.
In the event of failure to do so, the companyporation was liable to pay demurrage at the rate of US 4000 per day.
Since the respondent Society had started the execution of the work it had received a letter dated 30th September, 1994 from the Corporation to rise to the occasion and to companye forward with all the machinery geared up to ensure maintaining four gangs cranes in each shift to achieve the target of number less than 2000 M.Ts.
Therefore, the decree at the rate of Rs.215 per MT is unsustainable.
The respondent Society shall number be entitled to any amount beyond the agreed amount of Rs.15 per M.T.The appellant Corporation filed its additional written statement denying the claim for enhanced companypensation.
Since it was an extra work as stated in clause XVI of the companytract, but numbernegotiation took place as required under this clause, despite written request of the Respondent Plaintiff and numbermutual settlement was arrived at despite the request of the Respondent in various letters, there was numberrejection of the Plaintiffs request for higher remuneration.
A fax was sent in this regard.
Whether the Plaintiff proves that the plaintiff was carrying out a work of transport and handling the cargo as per the terms and companyditions of the tender?
Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff was unloading the quantity of the goods more than stipulated in the tender?
The interest rate shall be 6 as fixed by the High Court.
Respondent supported judgment and its appeal prayed for enhanced rate of interest.
There was delay even at the time of unloading.
The appellant Corporation also denied the claim towards enhanced rate for transportation charges.
Subsequently the respondent herein amended the claim to an amount of Rs.68,07,113.20 with interest at the rate of 18 per annum from the due date.
7440 OF 2000 With CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the enhancement rate from Rs.108/ per M.T. to Rs.215/ per M.T. as alleged?
Clause 41 of the companytract provides that the companytractor shall companyply with the rules and regulation of the Port Authorities, and since the Port Authorities had demanded discharge at faster rate the Respondent herein Plaintiff was under obligation to discharge at faster rate.
In the present appeal, the Corporation has withheld the information from the trial companyrt as well as the High Court.
Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Plaintiff appointed as companytractor for stevedoring, clearance for transportation at Kandla Port pursuant to the tender?
Therefore, the request of the appellant Corporation for a faster discharge was as per the terms of the companytract and in view of the specific order from the port authorities in terms of Clause 41 of the companytract.
It was, therefore submitted that the respondent is number entitled to claim remuneration at a higher rate but only the companytractual rate.
Since the appellant Corporation had failed to respond to the request, the High Court had rightly invoked the principle of quantum meruit and accepted the claim.
The respondent claimed that its entitlement for enhanced transportation charges was Rs.45 per MT in place of Rs.15 per MT which was stipulated in the companytract.
The extra work was number done gratuitously.
There is numberdispute that there was a request made by the appellant Corporation to discharge more than what was stipulated in terms of the Charter party agreement.
Clause XX 1 i of the companytract provided for a minimum discharge rate of 750 M.T. per day as provided in the Charter Party, so that the vessel would number suffer any demurrage.
The Appellant Corporation Defendant had insisted for discharge of cargo at higher rate with a view to companyply with the direction of the port authorities.
In support of Civil Appeal No.7440 of 2000, learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the companytracts stipulated remuneration at the rate of Rs.100/ per MT for discharge at the charter party rate for a period from 16.8.1994 to 15.8.1995.
Thus, the Respondent herein Plaintiff had carried out the work of handling cargo as per the terms of the companytract.
2678 of 1999 before the Gujarat High Court.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
2540 of 2002.
The learned trial Judge decided issues i , ii , iii and and v in favour of the Respondent Plaintiff.
Another letter dated 14th October, 1994 was to similar effect.
2540 OF 2002 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These two appeals have a companymon matrix.
In letter dated 14.11.1994 sent by the Assistant Manager of the appellant Corporation he had recommended for the enhanced rate of payment that would companystitute an admission of the enhanced rate as claimed by the respondent.
There is also material on record to show that extra expenditure had to be incurred for doing the extra work.
Though a stand has been taken that the signatories of the letters by the Corporation were number authorized, it is number disputed that on the basis of these letters extra work was undertaken.
At the depot of the Corporation, the arrangements were very poor.
It is to be numbered that the respondent had filed a suit Civil Suit No.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount from the defendant as prayed in para 12 A and B of the plaint?
6040 of 1994 before learned City Civil Judge Ahmedabad for injunction restraining the appellant No.1 Corporation and its functionaries from recovering and or withholding any amount from the bills of the respondent herein and also for a declaration that action of appellant No.1 Corporation in recovering various amounts without deciding the rates for extra work was bad in law and for directing the appellant Corporation to make payment for the extra work at the rates demanded by the respondent.
Parties in this judgment are described as per Civil Appeal No.7440 of 2000.
Since the rate of discharge is a variable factor from ship to ship, the remuneration in the present companytract is number dependant on the daily discharge rate.
In any event, the Respondent plaintiff had number established by evidence any additional companyt incrred by him for such additional discharge.
It is unconceivable as companytended by the appellant Corporation that numberextra expenditure would be involved in getting a higher rate of discharge.
Since numberreply was sent by the Appellant Corporation to the letter of Respondent dated 9.11.1994, refusing the demand the Respondent Plaintiff had proved his claim for companypensation at Rs.215/M.T. Even though the trial Court did number frame any issue on the claim of transportation charges at the rate of Rs.45/ per tonne instead of Rs.15/ per tonne, the High Court decided the issue holding that the respondent herein had substantiated the said claim by the letter dated 9.11.1994.
7440 of 2000 while the respondent in the said appeal is the appellant in the other appeal i.e. Civil appeal No.
Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court holding that the suit filed by plaintiff respondent was to be partly decreed for recovery of Rs.68,02,973/ from the defendants i.e. present appellants together with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6 per annum with appropriate companyt throughout.
Not only the appellant Corporation saved demurrage at the rate of US 4000 per day, it also earned discharge money for speedy work done.
iv and vi .
Aggrieved by the above judgment respondent herein filed First Appeal No.
The Food Corporation of India and Others are the appellants in Civil Appeal No.
The Plaintiff is entitled to extra remuneration for extra work.
The following findings inter alia were recorded by learned trial judge.
Actual figures also show that the discharge rate has been varying daily.
