Bhakra Beas Management Board v. M/S Baij Nath Ashrfi Lal

IN T

Bhakra Beas Ma

M/s Baij Nath A

CORAM: HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

MANDEEP PA

1.

plaintiff/applica Engineer agains and decrees pas whereby the suit Brief Facts

2.

for recovery of Manager. The ca sizes, and on the was placed for t amounting to ₹ amounting to ₹4 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ

AT CHANDIG

RS

Re

Pro

anagement Board

VERSUS Ashrfi Lal

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate for the a r. Manish Jain, Advocate and r. Manan Jain, Advocate for the r ANNU, J e present Regular Second A ant Bhakra Beas Management Bo st defendant M/s Baij Nath Ashr ssed by the learned lower courts t of the plaintiff for recovery wa e facts of the case, in brief, are t f ₹70,918.80/- against the defen ase set up by the plaintiff was th e offer made by the defendant, a the supply of tarpaulins of specif ₹48,502/-, 12M × 12M amoun 4,190.40/-, the total value being

JAB AND HARYANA GARH SA-92-1998 (O&M) served on: 18.08.2025 onounced on:21.08.2025

.....Appellant

.....Respondent DEEP PANNU appellant. respondent. Appeal has been filed by oard (BBMB) through its Assist rafi Lal, challenging the judgme s dated 07.03.1996 and 14.08.19 as dismissed. that the plaintiff BBMB filed a s ndant firm, represented through hat it required tarpaulins of differ purchase order dated 19 May 19 fic numbers as follows: 25M × 2 nting to ₹27,936/-, and 6M × g ₹80,620/-. The tarpaulins were

tant ents 997, suit h its rent 5M 6M

be supplied wi purchase order.

3.

As supply of corre defendant suppl ₹76,004.92/- thr the goods, the S letter dated 26.0 informed the de

4.

In defects in the defendant rectif tarpaulins of big be allowed to li their factory at defendant lifted

5.

that the large ta problem of sma neither supplied those lifted bac September 1989 and rather wrote

6.

Fee recovery of ₹45 ith specifications and on term per the agreed terms, 90% of th ct material, and the remaining lied the goods to the plaintiff rough Goods Receipt No. 00068 SDO Stores of the plaintiff foun

09.1989 to the Resident Engine fendant about the said defects. response, the defendant vide le material supplied and promise fied the defects in the tarpaulin gger size measuring 25M × 25M ift them from the stores of the p Mohali for repairs. The plaint the said tarpaulins. ereafter, the defendant suggeste arpaulins of 25M × 25M be conv ll holes. The plaintiff did not ac d the tarpaulins of the requisite ck. The plaintiff called upon the 9 vide letter dated 06.06.1991, e a letter dated 16.06.1992. eling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed 5,720/- being 90% of the advanc

ms and conditions detailed in he price was to be paid against 10% was to be adjusted later. T vide bill dated 26 July 1989 82 dated 26.07.1989. On receipt nd certain defects and addresse eer of plaintiff-Board, who in t etter dated 17.10.1989 admitted ed to rectify the same. While ns of smaller sizes, as regards M, the defendant requested that th laintiff at Slapper and take them tiff accepted this request, and ed, vide letter dated 11 June 19 verted into four pieces to avoid cept this suggestion. The defend e size nor removed the defects e defendant to refund ₹45,720/- but the defendant did not com d the present suit on 02.03.1994 ce payment made for the defect

for t of ed a turn hey m to 990, dant s in - in mply for

tarpaulins of siz at the rate of 12 amount claimed

7.

preliminary obj payment had be whereas the suit were dispatched the goods were not impleaded parties. On meri and that 90% o dispatched in pr due to improper the defendant d denied the rema

8.

Rep written statemen

9.

¶1def

¶2def

3.

¶4ze 25M × 25M, along with ₹5,0 2% per annum from September d being ₹70,918.80/-. e defendant appeared and fi jections that the suit was barr een made in September 1989 reg t was filed on 02.03.1994 beyond d at carrier's risk as mentioned in damaged during transit, the tran as a party, rendering the suit its, it was admitted that the plai of the price was received, but it roper condition on 18.08.1989 an r storage or mishandling by the p deputed an official to rectify the aining allegations. plication was filed by the plain nt. e following issues were framed b Whether plaintiff is entitled fendant? OPP Whether plaintiff is entitl fendant? If so at what rate? OPP Whether suit is time barred? Whether suit is bad for non-j

000/- as freight charges and inter r 1989 to February 1994, the to iled a written statement rais red by limitation as the adva garding which recovery was soug d three years, further that the go n the Goods Receipt, and as such nsport company was liable but w bad for non-joinder of necess intiff had placed the purchase or t was asserted that the goods w nd the damage might have occur plaintiff. It was further admitted t e defects as a goodwill gesture ntiff denying the allegations in by the learned trial Court:- d to recover the suit amount fr led to claim any interest fr OPD oinder of necessary parties? OPD

rest otal sing nce ght, ods h, if sary rder were rred that but rom rom D

5.

10.

Bot Findings of the

11.

impugned judgm authority should and asked him t case, the plainti Court held that of delivery, they to examine the and in that cas plaintiff were he

12.

date when the d the proposal of treated the agre 90% of the adv defendant to th plaintiff to lift th act and started c

13.

defects, but the to lift the repaire Relief.

th the parties led their respective e Trial Court e learned trial Court dismisse ment and decree dated 07.03. d have promptly taken up the m to rectify or replace the defectiv iff accepted the consignment w if the officials of the plaintiff fa y could not shift the blame on the goods at the transporter's place se, the transporter would have eld negligent. e trial Court further observed th defects were detected. It was fur the defendant to repair the tarp eement as cancelled unilaterally vance paid. It also relied upon he Superintending Engineer of he tarpaulins and make remainin claiming refund instead. e Court concluded that the defen plaintiff failed to cooperate. The ed tarpaulins and, if aggrieved, t

e evidence. ed the suit of the plaintiff v 1996. It held that the purchas matter with the supplier/defend ve material forthwith. In the pres without verifying its condition. T ailed to check the goods at the ti e defendant. The proper course w before accepting the consignme been liable. The officials of hat PW1 could not state the ex rther observed that after agreeing paulins at its premises, the plain y and filed the suit for recovery letter Exhibit P11 written by the plaintiff, which requested ng payment, but the plaintiff did ndant had been willing to repair e proper course for the plaintiff w o file a suit for damages thereaft

vide sing dant sent ime ent, xact g to ntiff y of not

14.

On action arose on Engineer about have been filed

02.03.1994, whi Findings of the

15.

judgment and de finding on limit price was to be later. If the mat consignment at t

16.

26.09.1989 vide large tarpaulins on 18.08.1989

02.03.1994, it w dismissed.

17.

Fee

07.03.1996 and appellant/plainti Submissions on

18.

It w the courts below was submitted t n the question of limitation, the

26.09.1989 when the SDO Store defects vide letter Exhibit P5. Ev d within three years, i.e., by 26 ich is clearly beyond limitation. e Appellate Court e plaintiff preferred an appeal, w ecree dated 14.08.1997. The low tation and also observed that a paid against supply of correct m terial supplied was defective, th the time of delivery. e Court observed that SDO St e Exhibit P5, and the suggestion into smaller sizes was not acce and 90% payment made on was held to be barred by limita eling aggrieved by the impugn

14.08.1997, present Regular Se iff. n Behalf of the Appellant was argued by learned counsel w erred in recording findings co that they wrongly concluded tha

trial Court held that the cause es of BBMB informed the Resid ven taking that date, the suit sho

6.09.1992, whereas it was filed which was dismissed vide impugn wer appellate Court mainly gave as per the plaint itself, 90% of material and 10% was to be adjus he plaintiff should have refused tores had reported the defects made on 11.11.1990 to convert epted. As the material was receiv

17.08.1989, and the suit filed ation. Accordingly, the appeal w ned judgments and decrees da econd Appeal has been filed by for the appellant/plaintiff that b ntrary to the evidence on record at the suit was time-barred and t

e of dent ould on ned sted on ved on ated both d. It

the cause of a correspondence (Exhibit P11), appellant, thus g

19.

It w cryptic order wi was made in ad Railway Receip and conditions found substanda an intimation w forthwith. It w intimated the de the courts below Submissions on

20.

Lea judgments of th limitation as the was further arg repair the defec did not coopera without protest a paid 90% of the

action arose in September 19 exchanged between the parties, whereby the respondent fina giving rise to cause of action. was further contended that the ithout applying its mind and fail dvance on 17.08.1989 to the Sta pt, and delivery was taken on 1 (Exhibit P2) clearly provided ard or defective at the consignee would be given to the supplier w as argued that the plaintiff ac efendant, and the defendant adm w, it was urged, deserved to be se n Behalf of the Respondent arned counsel for the resp he courts below, contending th e cause of action arose in 1989 gued that the defendant had, as cts or to cut the large tarpaulins ate. It was submitted that the at the time of delivery and could price.

¶89Reliance was placed on particularly letter dated 16.11.19 ally repudiated the claim of e lower appellate Court passed led to appreciate that 90% paym ate Bank of India for release of

8.08.1989. Clause 10 of the ter that if the material supplied w e end, it would not be accepted, who was bound to rectify the def ted as per the contract, promp mitted the defects. The findings et aside. pondent/defendant supported hat the suit was clearly barred when the defects were detected a gesture of goodwill, offered into smaller sizes, but the plain plaintiff had accepted the go d not later claim refund after hav

d a ment rms and fect ptly s of by d. It d to ntiff ods

Findings

Up record, this Cou limitation.

22.

19.05.1989. The made on 17.08. Stores of the pla the plaintiff wr defendant replie to send represen were not. On 20 tarpaulins for re June 1990 (Exh sizes. The plai proposal and de (Exhibit P11), re

23.

In v finding of the c The correspond only upon final filed on 2 Marc clause 10 of the found substanda supplier would on hearing learned counsel for urt finds that the main issue is e admitted chronology is that t e bill for 90% payment was rais 1989 and delivery taken on 18. aintiff reported the defects vide rote to the defendant to recti ed on 17.10.1989 (Exhibit P7) a ntatives for repairs. Smaller tar

0.12.1989, BBMB authorised the epairs (Exhibit P8). The defend hibit P9), suggested converting intiff, vide letter dated 06.06. emanded refund. The defendant f epudiated the claim. view of this sequence of events, courts below that the cause of ac dence between the parties contin l repudiation of the claim that t ch 1994 was, therefore, within e purchase order (Exhibit P2) is ard or defective at the consignee be intimated to rectify or repla

both parties and on perusal of whether the suit was filed wit the purchase order was placed sed on 26 July 1989. Payment w .08.1989. On 26.09.1989, the SD Exhibit P5, and on 09.10.10.19 fy the defects (Exhibit P6). T admitting the defects and promis rpaulins were repaired; larger o e defendant to take the 25M × 2 dant thereafter, vide letter dated g the large tarpaulins into sma 1991 (Exhibit P10), refused t finally, vide letter dated 16.06.19 , this Court does not agree with ction arose on 26 September 19 nued till 16 June 1992, and it w the cause of action arose. The the period of limitation. For th s relevant. It provided that mate e end shall not be accepted, and ace the defective material withi

thin on DO 989, sing ones 5M d 11 aller this

¶989suit his, erial

reasonable peri defendant admit the defects and estopped from a

24.

cancelled the ag had categorical smaller ones an infirmity. The su

25.

Acc

07.03.1996 and allowed and the interest at the i.e.02.03.1994, t

Pen

August 21, 2025 tripti

Whethe

Whethe iod. The plaintiff promptly in tted the defects and partially repa d having taken back the large alleging negligence on part of the e observation of the trial Co greement is misplaced in view o lly refused the proposal of co nd demanded refund. The findin uit was within limitation and mai cordingly, the judgments and d

14.08.1997 are set aside. The e suit of the plaintiff is decreed rate of 6% per annum from till realisation. nding application(s), if any, also

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

ntimated the defendant, and aired the material. Having accep tarpaulins, the defendant is n e plaintiff at the time of delivery. ourt that the plaintiff unilatera f Exhibit P10, wherein the plain onverting the large tarpaulins i ngs of both courts suffer from le intainable. decrees of the courts below da present Regular Second Appea d for recovery of ₹70,918.80/- w m the date of filing of the s stand disposed off. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE king

pted now . ally ntiff into egal ated al is with suit,