Koram Chand Thapar & Bros(Coal Sales) Limited v. Monaco Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 12.08.2008 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPALO.S.A.NO.224 OF 2002Koram Chand Thapar & Bros(Coal Sales) Limited,"Thapar House"No.25, Brabourne Road,Calcutta-700 001.. Appellant/PlaintiffVs.1.Monaco Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.122, First Floor, T.T.K. Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018.2.Ravi N.Iyer.. Respondents/Defendants This O.S.A. has been preferred under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of O.S.Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the judgment anddecree of the learned Single Judge made in C.S.No.1806 of 1993, dated15.05.2001. For Appellant : Mr.R.Thiagarajan for M/s.Rangarajan and PrabhakharanFor Respondents: No appearance - - - - JUDGMENT(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)This appeal challenges a common judgment of this Court made inC.S.Nos.1806 of 1993 and 1467 of 1994.2.C.S.No.1806 of 1993 was filed by the appellant/plaintiff,seeking damages and also mandatory injunction and permanentinjunction based on agreements, while C.S.No.1467 of 1994 was filedby the first respondent herein, seeking for payment by way of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interest for delayed payment and also for the money due to him as perthe contracts. On trial, both the suits were dismissed. Aggrievedover the dismissal of C.S.No.1806 of 1993, the instant appeal isbrought forth. So far as the dismissal of C.S.No.1467 of 1994, thejudgment of the learned Single Judge is not appealed against.3.The appellant, who is the plaintiff in C.S.No.1806 of 1993,sought the relief with the following pleadings:a)The plaintiff, who is engaged in the business of trading papersand computer stationery, was interested in purchasing commercialpremises at Madras for carrying on business and hence he approachedthe second defendant. The second defendant had entered into anagreement, dated 13.10.1988 with one Fathima Bibi to purchase herproperty at Door No.43, Montieth Road, Madras measuring an extent of2 grounds 2347 sq. ft. The first defendant had entered into anotheragreement, dated 13.10.1988 with one Abusha Marikar to purchase herproperty at Door No.44, Montieth Road, Madras, measuring an extent ofabout 4 grounds 1102 sq. ft. The plaintiff entered into an agreement,dated 23.12.1989 with the first defendant represented by the seconddefendant by which the plaintiff agreed to purchase the entire secondfloor area of 11154 sq. ft. in the said commercial building to beconstructed over the schedule land. It was agreed that the buildingthat is to be put up in the suit land would be named as "ThaperHouse". b)As per the agreement relating to the second floor, total costto be paid by the plaintiff is Rs.87,00,120/-. Specifications for thecommercial building were all given in 'D' schedule of the agreement.The plaintif has further agreed to pay 40% of the total considerationof Rs.87,00,120/- at the time of registration of the sale deeds forthe undivided share in the suit land. The payment schedule was givenin 'E' schedule to the agreement and the price was agreed to be finaland not subject to any escalation. The first defendant has agreed asper the agreement, dated 23.12.1989 to complete the construction ofthe commercial complex within 24 months from the date of agreementbarring unforeseen circumstances being civil commotion and riots,acts of God or any change in law or in case of Government orcompetent authority revoking any licence or permission granted. Itwas also agreed that in case of any delay beyond 24 months in handingover possession of the building, the first defendant is liable to payliquidated damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per week, so long asthe delay continues and possession of the commercial complex is nothanded over. An advance of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the plaintiff. Asper the agreement, the plaintiff is to be provided with car parkingspace for 12 cars in the basement of the building. c)The plaintif also entered into an another agreement with thefirst defendant, dated 5.5.1990, as per which he has agreed topurchase the entire first floor of Thapar House measuring 10,965 sq.ft. and the proposed undivided share in the land for a totalconsideration of Rs.87,17,175/-. The plaintiff as per this agreement https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is entitled to car parking space for 10 cars in the basement. Therewas Tri-partite agreement between Fathima Bibi, the plaintiff and thefirst defendant, dated 1.6.1990, as per which the owner, namelyFathima Bibi, has agreed to sell the proportionate land to theplaintiff and the first defendant has been given right to get alongwith the construction of the building. Fathima Bibi has agreed toexecute the sale deed for the proportionate share in the land infavour of the plaintiff. There were two tripartite agreementsseparately for the first and second floors. The plaintiff has madepayments to the first defendant towards consideration totallingRs.78,30,108/- in respect of second floor between 23.12.1989 and13.11.1992. With regard to the agreement in respect of the firstfloor, the plaintiff has paid to the first defendant totally a sum ofRs.81 lakhs between 19.12.1990 and 1.6.1993. On the date ofregistration of the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff in respectof undivided share in the land, i.e. on 19.12.1990, a sum of Rs.29lakhs was made by the plaintiff. But, the sale deeds were not handedover to the plaintiff. The first defendant did not keep up the timeschedule for completion and handing over possession of the first andsecond floors and the delay was only on the part of the firstdefendant. Inspite of the delay caused by the first defendant inbuilding work, the plaintiff has totally paid a sum ofRs.1,59,30,108/-. The plaintiff has issued cheque for Rs.6 lakhs on4.3.1993, which was returned by the first defendant. However, on30.03.1993, the plaintiff issued another cheque for the said amountwhich was accepted by the first defendant. d)Regarding the second floor, the plaintiff has made full paymentexcept 10% payment, which becomes due only on completion. With regardto the first floor, the plaintiff has paid 90% of the considerationand only Rs.6,17,175/- is due to the first defendant, which theplaintiff is ready to pay immediately provided the first defendantcompletes the construction in all aspects. The plaintiff has beenready and willing to perform his obligations arising out of theagreement. Though the first defendant agreed to provide car parkingspace for 22 cars under two agreements, he provided car parking spacefor only 12 cars in the basement and for remaining cars, the spacefor car parking was provided outside the building, but within thecompound. The plaintiff came to know that the first defendant hastaken a loan from the bank by creating an equitable mortgage bydepositing the title deeds of the plaintiff. There were exchange ofnotices. There was compromise between the plaintiff and thedefendants and a Memorandum of Understanding was arrived at in themeeting held on 29.05.1993. The first defendant also handed overpossession of the first and second floors of Thapar House togetherwith car parking space, but it was not completed in all aspects. Thefirst defendant also agreed to hand over original title deedsobtained by the plaintiff and he has also assured to get a letterfrom the Vaisya Bank to show that there was no mortgage orencumbrance in the building and the land purchased by the plaintiff.The plaintiff was prepared to pay the balance of sale considerationon completion of the work, but the first defendant was not able to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ finish the work even by extended time, namely 31.07.1993 and30.09.1993. e)The plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- to the firstdefendant on 19.12.1990 with regard to the cost of registration offour sale deeds. By making unauthorised construction in fourth floor,the first defendant has incurred the risk of building beingdemolished by M.M.D.A. Since the works have not been completed evenbeyond the date fixed in the memorandum of understanding, the firstdefendant is liable to pay liquidated damages at Rs.25,000/- per weektill he completes the work. The plaintiff also entitled for mandatoryinjunction directing the first defendant to complete the remainingwork. Hence the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking liquidateddamages, mandatory injunction and also permanent injunction.4.The suit was resisted by the first defendant by filing writtenstatement, stating that the first defendant has executed agreements,dated 23.12.1989 and 5.5.1990 in favour of the plaintiff in respectof the purchase of first and second floors; that the plaintiff isentitled to the second floor having an extent of 11,154 sq. ft. andthe first floor with an area of 10,965 sq.ft.; that the plaintiff inall is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,74,17,295/-; that the plaintiffhas paid a sum of Rs.1,59,30,108/- and he is still liable to pay asum of Rs.14,87,187/- to the defendants; that the sale deeds havebeen executed in favour of the plaintiff for the undivided share inthe land by the owners Fathima Bibi and Abusha Marikar; that exceptsome minor works in the first and second floors, the construction oftwo floors have been completed; that the defendant has also deliveredthe keys of first and second floors to the plaintiff; that thedefendant has also delivered the sale deeds executed by the landowners and a letter from Vysya Bank to the plaintiff, stating thatthere is no encumbrance over the plaintiff's share in the building;that the plaintiff has taken possession of first and second floors inthe premises even prior to the date stipulated and there wasdifficulty in handing over the car parking space only; that prior to29.05.1993, the first defendant was not granted licence to enter thefirst and second floors to complete the minor remaining works; thatthe plaintiff cannot ask any damages in respect of common area; thatthe dispute with regard to actual allotment of car parking space wasresolved on 29.05.1993; that the claim for damages is notsustainable; that the first defendant has constructed the building inaccordance with the permission granted by M.M.D.A.; that thedefendants have not interfered with the plaintiff's possession in thefirst and second floors; that the defendants are not liable to payinterest and that the plaintiff has not made out a case for damagesor other reliefs and hence the suit was to be dismissed. 5.The plaintiff has also filed a reply statement reiterating thecontentions stated in the plaint and further, he has stated that theplaintiff has taken out a commission and the Advocate Commissionerhas inspected the property and he has taken an inventory of items ofwork not completed; that payments have been given only in accordance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with the progress in construction work and that the plaintiff is notable to make the final payment because the work is not completed bythe first defendant and hence the plaintiff is entitled for therelief sought for.6.On the above pleadings, 9 issues were framed. Equally, on thepleadings in C.S.No.1467 of 1994, 8 issues were framed. Both thesuits were filed by the respective parties seeking the relief restingon the agreements entered into between the parties and alsocomplaining of breach of the same against each other. Both the suitswere taken up for trial jointly and they were jointly tried. On theside of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-43were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined andExs.B-1 to B-13 were marked. On consideration of the materialsavailable and submissions made, both the suits were dismissed,recording that the plaintiff in C.S.No.1806 of 1993 was foundentitled to Rs.14,87,187/- towards the money spent by him forcompleting the work and damages for breach of the contract by thedefendant and this amount was ordered to be adjusted against theamount due to the defendant under Exs.A-1 and A-2, i.e. a sum ofRs.14,07,187/- and thus, the claims in both the suits were partlyallowed and adjusted against each other and both the suits weredismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs and under thesecircumstances, this appeal has arisen. 7.The only question that would arise for consideration in thisappeal is whether the plaintiff/appellant is entitled for remainingpart of damages as claimed by him in the suit.8.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appelant, the learnedcounsel has made the following submissions:a)The appellant has entered into two separate agreements underExs.A.1 and A.2, dated 23.12.1989 and 05.05.1990 for construction ofthe buildings with proportionate undivided share in relation to theextent of the construction to be acquired by the appellant. Theappellant and the respondents entered into a memorandum ofunderstanding under Ex.A.21 dated 29.05.1993, in which the partieshave resolved the dispute and the respondents had agreed to completethe building on or before 31.7.1996 and 30.09.1996 in all aspects andhand over the same to the plaintiff. It is an admitted fact that thebuildings have not been completed and handed over to the appellantwith all amenities. The appellant has agreed to waive the penaltyunder Ex.A.1 subject to the respondents fulfilling the obligationsunder Exs.A.1 and A.2. The respondents having failed to adhere to theterms under Ex.A.21, are bound by the original contracts entered intobetween the parties. The appellant has paid a sum of Rs.6,17,175/- tothe Thapar House Owner's Association being the amount payable by theappellant in relation to the incomplete construction and theappellant is entitled to adjust the expenses incurred thereto fromand out of the amounts payable by them under Exs.A.1 and A.2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ b)There had been shortfall in the constructed area allotted tothe appellant under Exs.A.1 and A.2 and as such, the appellant wouldbe entitled to Rs.15,07,740/-. The appellant shall be entitled forliquidated damages under the above two agreements. The Commissioner'sreport would establish the incomplete nature of work performed by therespondents and also the abandonment of the contract. The delay onthe part of the respondents would dis-entitle them from claimingmoneys payable under Exs.A.1 and A.2. The letter, dated 7.9.1992 fromKarur Vysya Bank would indicate that the property had been mortgagedby the respondents and the appellant was required not to makepayments directly to the respondents and were asked to await forfurther communications from them and hence it cannot be construedthat the appellant had withheld payment deliberately. The respondentswere given an opportunity to complete the building, but they had notavailed that opportunity and had abandoned the work. Once Section 74of the Contract Act is applicable, the court has got powers to awarddamages and the plaintiff need not prove the same and hence theappeal has got to be allowed. 9.Despite service of notice, no representation on the side of therespondents. From the available materials, the following would emergeas the facts admitted by the parties before the trial court.The properties in Door No.43, Montieth Road, Egmore, Madras,having an extent of 2 grounds and 2347 sq.ft. belonged to one FathimaBibi and the adjoining property comprised in Door No.44 belonged toone Abusha Marikar. In respect of the said two properties, the firstdefendant entered into an agreement of sale on 13.10.1988, whereinthe consideration was approximately Rs.80 lakhs. Both properties wereconsolidated as a single block and sought to be developed by thefirst defendant by putting up a multi-storeyed building. The ownersof the properties permitted the first defendant to develop theproperty and approval was granted on 20.08.1990. An agreement, dated23.12.1989 was entered into between the first defendant and theplaintiff in respect of the second floor and an another agreement,dated 5.5.1990 was entered in respect of the first floor. Thoseagreements were marked as Exs.A.1 and A-2 respectively. From aperusal of the agreements, it could be seen that the saleconsideration of each floor was fixed at Rs.87,00,120/- for thesecond floor and Rs.87,17,175/- for the first floor. The built uparea in respect of the first floor was 10,965 sq.ft. and while forthe second floor, it was 11,154 sq. ft. Inter-alia, it was agreedthat the first defendant builder should complete the construction ofcommercial premises for the plaintiff purchaser within 24 months fromthe date of agreements. If there was any default on the part of thepurchaser to perform his part of the obligation, i.e. to pay theamount due and payable towards the cost of construction and his shareof common maintenance, such outstanding shall remain and constitute acharge on his interest over the land purchased from the owners. Ifthere was any delay on the part of the builder to construct thecommercial premises and hand over the possession, the first defendantshould pay liquidated damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per week to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the purchaser, so long as the delay continues and possession ofcommercial premises was not handed over to the plaintiff. It wasagreed that the plaintiff should pay 40% of the total considerationafter getting the registration of sale deeds in respect ofproportionate undivided share in the land from the owners. Theplaintiff should pay 10% of balance on completion of ground floorroof slab, another 10% is to be paid to the builder on completion offirst floor roof slab, another 10% is to be paid at the time ofsecond floor roof slab, yet another 10% on completion of third floorroof slab and in the remaining amount, 10% is to be paid to thebuilder on completion of most of the brick works and last 10% is tobe paid by the plaintiff to the builder after getting possession. Asagreed between the parties, the construction was not completed withina period of two years and because of the circumstances beyondcontrol, it could not be completed. Equally, there was a delay inmaking payment, as per the time schedule as found in the agreement.There were exchange of letters and communications, one calling uponthe other to perform their part of obligations. While the matterstood thus, there was compromise between the plaintiff and thedefendants on 19.5.1993, as evidenced in Ex.A.21 minutes of theMemorandum of Understanding. From Ex.A.21, it would be quite clearthat on 19.5.1993, the defendant has handed over the entire first andsecond floors of the buidling and premises of Door Nos.43 and 44,Montieth Road, Egmore, Madras with 22 car parking space. Under thememorandum of understanding, the first defendant undertook thecompletion of the first and second floors on 31.7.1993 in all aspectsand Thapar House by 30.09.1993 in all aspects. The plaintiff wasinsisting that all 22 car parking space must be allotted to himinside the basement, but under Ex.A.21, it was resolved that theplaintiff should be allotted 15 car parking slots in the basement andremaining 7 car parking slots inside the premises, but not in thebasement. 10.The defendant mortgaged the properties which were sold infavour of the plaintiff by two original owners with the bank, fromwhom the first defendant has raised loan. The defendant has clarifiedthat he has not mortgaged the land purchased by the plaintiff and hasalso assured the plaintiff that he would get a letter to that effect.Accordingly, letter was received from the bank by the first defendantand was handed over to the plaintiff. While the matter stood thus,the plaintiff filed suit in C.S.No.1806 of 1993, alleging that therewas breach of agreement on the part of defendant and the possessionof the building was not handed over and as per the agreement, thedefendant was liable to pay liquidated damages at Rs.25,000/- perweek and thus, the plaintiff sought the relief of permanentinjunction, mandatory injunction, apart from damages ofRs.45,75,000/-.11.The defendant has not only countered the suit, but also filedthe other suit, claiming that it was the plaintiff, who has breachedthe agreement and was liable to pay a sum of Rs.14,87,187/- as perEx.A.21, memorandum of understanding and under these circumstances,the plaintiff should be directed to pay the same with interest. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.As could be seen above, this appeal is at the instance of theplaintiff in C.S.No.1806 of 1993, challenging the judgment,disallowing their part of the claim. Admittedly, Exs.A-1 and A-2,agreements were entered into between the parties. The agreement,dated 23.12.1989 was in respect of the second floor, where the totalconsideration was Rs.87,00,120/- and the agreement, dated 05.05.1990was in respect of the first floor, where the total consideration wasat Rs.87,17,175/-. It was also agreed that the entire constructionmust be completed within a period of 24 months from the date of theagreements. Clauses 29 and 28 of the agreements respectively are inrespect of the consequences that would follow on the failure ofperformance of obligations in time. If there was any failure on thepart of the builder in constructing the commercial premises andhanding over the possession thereof in all respects to the purchaserwithin 24 months from the date of agreements, the builder should payliquidated damages to the purchaser at the rate of Rs.25,000/- perweek or part thereof as long as the delay continues and possession ofthe commercial premises is not handed over to the purchaser. Theplaintiff has sought for liquidated damaged, resting his claim onclauses 29 and 28 of the agreements, respectively, and also forrecovery of amount actually spent by the plaintiff for completing theconstruction. 13.It is not in controversy that the construction was notcompleted within the time stipulated under Exs.A-1 and A-2. Afterexchange of communications and notices, parties entered into Ex.A.21,Memorandum of Understanding, dated 29.05.1993. This Memorandum ofUnderstanding should have been entered into by the parties, who hadgot clear knowledge and conscious of non completion of constructionwithin the stipulated time and who had appraised the circumstancesand reasons attendant and that too after exchange of communicationsand notices. From Ex.A.21, it would be quite clear that thedefendants have handed over the possession of entire first and secondfloors of the building and premises in Door Nos.43 and 44, MontiethRoad, Egmore. It could also be seen that the works in the first andsecond floors were almost completed, except some polishing work andminor works. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff has takenpossession of the property. Hence the contention of the plaintiffthat he was unable to take possession of the property and only afterinspection of the properties by the Commissioner appointed by thiscourt, he got possession of the property, has got to be rejected. 14.A perusal of the records would clearly indicate that theCommissioner appointment was sought for only for making an inspectionand to file the report as to the stage of construction. TheCommissioner Report Ex.C.1 was to the effect that the entire work wasalmost completed in the first and second floors and hence it would bequite clear that substantial part of the construction works of firstand second floors were completed within the time stipulated. It isnot the case of the plaintiff that the progress of construction workwas lacking or it was not done within stipulated time. When aclarification was sought for by the plaintiff as to whether the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ property purchased by him was under mortgage, the first defendant hasobtained a letter from the bank to the effect that the property ofthe plaintiff was not mortgaged by the defendants. When each partywas complaining of other as to the non performance of theirrespective part of obligations under Exs.A-1 and A-2, agreements,Ex.A.21, the Memorandum of Understanding was entered into. It wasagreed that the first defendant should complete the entire work inthe first and second floors by 31.07.1993 and the entire work in thebuilding of Thapar House by 30.09.1993 and in case, the firstdefendant completes the building by the stipulated date, theplaintiff had agreed not to insist upon damages for the delay causedby the first defendant. The incorporation of all these clauses wouldbe indicative of the fact that time was extended for completion ofwork. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be allowed tosay that there was delay on the part of the first defendant incompleting the construction and hence the first defendant was liableto pay damages, as agreed under Exs.A.1 and A.2. At this juncture, itis pertinent to point out that even as per the memorandum ofunderstanding, the plaintiff has paid Rs.1,59,30,108/- and was stillliable to pay a sum of Rs.14,87,187/- to the defendants. 15.So far as the claim made by the appellant, resting his claimon clause Nos.29 and 28 of Exs.A.1 and A.2, is concerned, it has gotto be rejected on three grounds. Firstly, the court is unable tonotice any delay on the part of the defendants in making properprogress in completing the construction of floors as per schedule.Secondly, in appraisement of the circumstances, the parties haveentered into memorandum of understanding, as evidenced underExs.A.21. Thirdly, the plaintiff has not made payment as per theschedule agreed between the parties. The plaintiff did not file anyevidence to show that payments were made as per schedule. A letterwas addressed by the first defendant on 30.06.1991, demanding paymentof Rs.5 lakhs as per schedule. The said amount of Rs.5 lakhs shouldhave been paid on or before 5.5.1990, but it was not paid even upto30.06.1991. Under Ex.A.8, dated 12.7.1991, the first defendant haspointed out further delay in making payment. A perusal of Ex.A.9,letter dated 10.3.1992 would make it clear that modification in theconstruction work was sought for by the plaintiff to convert a partof second floor into a guest house. A plan was subsequently sent bythe defendants for approval of the plaintiff and that process hasalso caused delay. Ex.A.15 was the series of letters, stating thatfrom January to March, 1993, a sum of Rs.6 lakhs was not settled.From the evidence, it would be quite clear that certain minor workshave to be done to complete the construction. The first defendant, inthe course of his communication, has pointed out that the plaintiff,who took possession of the property, did not permit the defendants tocomplete the construction. All would go to show, in the face of theabove circumstances, that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to resthis claim under Exs.A-1 and A-2, alleging that the construction wasnot completed by the defendants within the stipulated time and hencethe defendant was liable to pay liquidated damages as per clauses 29and 28 of Exs.A.1 and A.2, agreements respectively. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16.It is true, certain minor works were to be done apart frominstallation of lift and also other amenities, without which theplaintiff, who was the purchaser, could not enjoy the property. Underthe Memorandum of Understanding, it was clearly understood that thebuilding should be completed within 31.07.1993 and 30.09.1993, i.e.the entire work in the first and second floor by 31.7.1993 and theentire work in the building Thapar House by 30.09.1993 and in case,the first defendant complets the building by stipulated date, theplaintiff has agreed not to insist upon damages for the delay causedby the first defendant. From the evidence, it would be quite clearthat the entire work was not completed as understood under thememorandum of understanding within the time stipulated. The clausethat was incorporated above that the plaintiff should not insist upondamages for the delay caused by the first defendant is applicable ifthe first defendant completes the building within the stipulated datefound in the Memorandum of Understanding on 31.7.1993 and 30.09.1993respectively, but not done so. Hence only to that extent, theplaintiff has got to be compensated by way of damages. 17.Apart from that, the plaintiff has shell out of his pocket thefollowing sums for completing the construction. The plaintiff joiningwith the members of association of Thapar House, entrusted the sameto G.V. Constructions, of which P.W.2 was the Proprietor. P.W.2 gaveestimation for Rs.12 lakhs and odd and it is also clear from theevidence of P.W.2. The plaintiff, joining with the other members ofassociation, has paid his share, namely Rs.4,32,214/-, which thedefendant is liable to pay and under Ex.A.36, the plaintiff wasentitled to 10% paid to Otis Elevators for providing lift. Though theplaintiff has claimed entire amount, since he has to get contributionfrom the other members of Association, he could claim from thedefendant only Rs.1.50 lakhs. These are all actually the amountsspent by the plaintiff from his pocket. It is pertinent to point outthat as per the memorandum of understanding, the plaintiff was liableto pay Rs.14,87,187/-. After incurring the above expenses, theplaintiff was liable to pay the defendant only the balance. Aspointed out earlier, without the above amenities and also otherprovisions, the plaintiff could not enjoy the property. 18.Admittedly, the defendants did not complete the work withinthe stipulated time as found in the memorandum of understanding.Hence for that purpose, a reasonable compensation has got to befixed. Under the above stated circumstances, the following decisionsof the Apex Court would squarely apply to the present facts of thecase. a)1974 (2) SCC 231 (UNION OF INDIA VS. RAMAN IRONFACTORY)b)AIR 1963 SC 1405 (FATEH CHAND VS. BALKISHAN DASS).Taking into consideration and applying the provisions enunciated bythe Supreme Court and taking into consideration the facts and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circumstances in the instant case and applying the principles forfixing liquidated damages reasonably at a given situation, thelearned Single Judge has come to a conclusion that exceptRs.6,50,000/- spent by the plaintiff to complete the construction andpayable by the first defendant, out of Rs.14,87,187/-, which theplaintiff was liable to pay to the defendant, the remainder would befixed as liquidated damages, which in the opinion of the court, wasreasonable and has been rightly done. Hence the judgment of thelearned Single Judge has got to be sustained. It is not a fit casewhere the court could direct the defendants/respondents to make anyfurther payment towards damages. 19.In the result, the original side appeal is dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.VvkTo1. The Sub Asst. Registrar, Original Side, High Court, Madras.+ 1 CC To M/s.Rangarajan and Prabhakharan Advocate SR NO.44264 O.S.A.NO.224 OF 2002GV {CO}TP/28.8.08