Food Corporation of India v. Gurchetan Singh and others
Case Details
RSA No. 3897 of 2019 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 161 RSA No. 3897 of 2019 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION :- 08.07.2025 Food Corporation of India ...Appellant Versus Gurchetan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present:- Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. *** HARKESH MANUJA , J. (Oral) 1. By way of filing the present appeal challenge has been laid to the judgments and decrees dated 30.07.2005 and 25.08.2009 passed by the Court
Legal Reasoning
below whereby the suit for recovery filed at the instance of the appellant-plaintiff against defendants-respondents stands dismissed. 2. Briefly stating, as per the case set up by the appellant-plaintiff, the respondent-defendant submitted his tender on 09.02.1988 for appointment as Handling and Transport Contractor at Food Storage Depot, Mullanpur. The respondent quoted the rate of 91% ASOR for execution of work for the period 18.06.1988 to 17.06.1990. It was further submitted that the offer of respondent- defendant became open on 08.03.1988 which was extendable by the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Punjab Region, Chandigarh at his discretion for a fortnight beyond 08.03.1988. It was thus submitted that the acceptance which was conveyed by the plaintiff-appellant to the respondent- PARVINDER SINGH 2025.07.15 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No. 3897 of 2019 (O&M) 2 defendant vide telegram dated 23.03.1988 followed by a communication dated 25/26.03.1988 for depositing the security amount and for taking up the work for execution w.e.f. 17.06.1988 was legal and valid. It was further pleaded that the respondent-defendant failed to join the work and even did not deposit the security amount despite repeated notices served upon them and the same was ultimately got done by the appellant-plaintiff at the risk and cost of the respondent-defendant regarding which the respondent-defendant was liable to pay the loss of Rs.17,30,944/- along with interest hence the recovery suit was filed. 3. Upon notice, respondent-defendants appeared and filed written statement while denying the claim of the plaintiff-appellant. It was submitted that the acceptance of the offer made by the respondent-defendant was beyond fortnight from 08.03.1988 and thus the same being unlawful, the respondent- defendant was not under obligation to either deposit any security amount or even take up the work and accordingly was never liable to pay any amount to the appellant-plaintiff. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-
Legal Reasoning
“1.Whether Shri R.L. Sahi, District Manager is competent to file the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff? OPD. 2. Whether a valid and legal agreement / contract has been duly executed between the parties. If so, its effect? OPP 3. Whether defendant has committed breach of the terms and conditions of the contract? If so its effect? OPP 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 17,30,944/- as alleged with interest? OPP 5. Whether plaintiff has been estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPP. PARVINDER SINGH 2025.07.15 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No. 3897 of 2019 (O&M) 3 6. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD. 7. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP. 8. Relief.” 5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.2005 dismissed the suit filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff. In view thereof First Appeal was filed, the same also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decreed dated 25.08.2009 passed by the Court of learned Additional Judge Ludhiana. 6. In view of the aforementioned judgment and decree, learned counsel for the appellant raises the pleas that once the appellant-plaintiff submitted his tender on 09.02.1988, the offer was open upto 08.03.1988; which was further extendable at the instance of Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Punjab, Region Chandigarh at his discretion for a fortnight beyond 08.03.1988 and thus its acceptance in favour of the respondent-defendant before dated 23.03.1988 was valid in law being within 15 days of 08.03.1988. No other arguments has been addressed. 7. I have heard submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper book. 8. At this stage, it may be just to reproduce certain relevant findings recorded by the First Appellate Court which read as follows :- “As per the terms and conditions of the tender only then we can say it as concluded contract. As per the terms of the tender, the tenders were to be filed by the parties in the office of Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Punjab Region, Chandigarh upto 2.30 PM on filed by the 9.2.1988 and accordingly tender Ex.P2 defendant/appellant. It was to be opened at 3 PM on 9.2.1988. However, there was provision that the tender will remain open for acceptance upto and inclusive of 8.3.1988 with further provision PARVINDER SINGH 2025.07.15 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No. 3897 of 2019 (O&M) 4 that Senior Regional Manager may at its discretion can extended time, such extension shall be open and that time limit was extended by a fortnight by telegram Ex.P6 beyond uptil 8.3.1988. So far as fortnight although in popular sense it may be 15 days, but according to Webster's Comprehensive dictionary it is a period of two weeks; 14 days. Therefore, Plaintiff Corporation was under obligation to accept the tender of the defendant upto 22.3.1988. However, telegram Ex.P7 is dated 23.3.1988, therefore, its acceptance is not within the prescribed period. This court does not agree with the preposition raised by the counsel for the respondent that 14 days can be calculated upto 12th midnight of 22.4.1988 and by that time post offices were closed, therefore, consent was conveyed on the next day I.e. 23.3.1988. In this regard there is judgment reported in AIR-1981-143 B.Rajkuar Patra Versus Union of India and others. In that case it was observed that where the train by which the representative who came to submit the tender, ran unusually late on the day and delay being beyond the control of the representative the tender was accepted by the authority beyond the time fixed by the tender notice; the delayed arrival of the train could not constitute a justification to accept the tender furnished beyond time. If the tender was to be accepted it could be accepted on 22.3.1998 till the opening of post office. fur office.” 9. Further, the term fortnight has been discussed in detail in case of K. Chinna Basireddigari Subbireddi vs. G. Nagireddi and another; 1957 SCC Online A.P. 387, paragraphs 1 to 3 of the same are reproduced hereunder :- “(1) The short question that arises for determination in the second appeal is as to the true meaning of the ex pression fortnight. The respondent herein was directed to deposit the sale amount within a fortnight from 1st september, 1949 and he deposited the amount on 16th september, 1949. The lower court held that the deposit not having been made on 15th was out of time while the appellate court PARVINDER SINGH 2025.07.15 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No. 3897 of 2019 (O&M) 5 came to the conclusion that the deposit on 16th was within a fortnight. (2) The meaning given in the oxford english dictionary for fortnight is a “period of fourteen nights, two weeks.” It is stated that it is a “contracted form of oe. Feowertyne niht fourteen nights”. Similarly, in webster's new international dictionary of the english language, the meaning given is the space of fourteen days; two weeks”. In stroud's judicial dictionary, reference is made to the decision in labourchers v. Earl of wharndiffe, (1879) 1. R. 13 ch. D. 346, 353. Wherein it was held that a fortnight's notice meant only 14 clear days notice. Jessel, m. R. Pointed out that a fortnight has a definite legal meaning and that therefore, "the secretary's notion of the club day cannot affect the question which the court has to decide” in sankaranaravana's english telugu dictionary, the meaning given is "fourteen days two weeks, a paksham (in telegu)”. In brown's english telugu dictionary, fortnight is defined as meaning 14 days and also a paksham (in telugu) it is contended by arik. V. Rangacharı, the learned advocate for the respondent, that in asmuch as both in brown's english telugu dictionary and sankaranayrana's english telugu dictionary, fortnight is defined as a paksham, it must be understood that a fortnight means 15 days inasmuch as a month has only two pakshams I am unable to accept his contention inatmuch as the expression must be given meaning as stated in the english dictionaries. It is not open to interpret the english language in a manner different from how it it understood in the english dictionaries. In public prosecutor Rajanga, (1953) 2 m. L. J. 499 a. I. R. 1954 mad. 285 Govinda menon, j, delivering the judgment on behalf of the bench rightly observed in construing the word " premises that the ordinary interpretation and connotation given to it in the english language and the dictionaries should be adopted Hard ship is not a sufficient ground for me to interpret the expression in a manner diffrent from what a contained in the english PARVINDER SINGH 2025.07.15 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment RSA No. 3897 of 2019 (O&M) 6 dictionaries. The emotional interpretation adopted by the district judge it in my opinion erroneous. (3) As the deposit was not made within a fortnight, the decree of the lower appellate court has to be set aside and the decree of
Decision
the thal court restored. There will be no order as to costs throughout Leave granted. Appeal allowed.” 10. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and the law applicable thereto, the offer made by the respondent-defendant which was opened upto 08.03.1988 was extendable only upto 22.03.1988 and as such any acceptance conveyed by the appellant-plaintiff to the respondent- defendant on 23.03.1988 was meaningless. As such, based thereupon, the respondent-defendant could not have held liable for any loss and the appellant- plaintiff was not entitled for any recovery towards risk and cost qua the work done by it. In view of the aforesaid, I do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts and law recorded by the Courts below with there being no misreading or misinterpretation of the pleadings and the evidence available on record. 11. 12. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 08.07.2025 P.Singh Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No PARVINDER SINGH 2025.07.15 10:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment