Whether contract can be rescinded if contractor fails to sign contract personally?

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised
the paper book and of the view that there is no merit and force in the
submission of Ms.Pathak, for, the Arbitrator categorically recorded a
finding with regard to tendering of documents at the behest of the
respondent-contractor. The officials of the Corporation should not have
been right in calling upon the contractor to sign the agreement as he was
in custody and, therefore, had executed GPOA and assignment of right of
a principal to the agent is recognised in law and once the Corporation
failed to honour the contract and insisted upon the presence of the
contractor for signing the agreement, there was no occasion for them to
cancel the contract. The intention of the contractor is evident from the
deposit of the security deposit. It is the conceded position on record that
respondent No.1 was in judicial custody w.e.f. 1.9.2002 and on
6.11.2002, the appellant issued notice to respondent No.1 to sign the

agreement in person by 17.11.2002, failing which the contract shall be
rescinded at his risk and cost and earnest money shall also be forfeited.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O.No.6853 of 2010 (O&M)
Dated: August 01, 2016
Central Ware Housing Corporation, Panchkula

V
M/s Jaswinder Singh,
CORAM:  AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE
Citation:AIR 2016(NOC)675 P&H

Print Page

Whether contract entered by govt department with contractor can be rescinded without following principles of natural justice?

 Once a show cause notice was given and detailed
reply furnished by the parties, it is expected of the authorities to
pass an appropriate order after considering the reply, and not
merely stating that the reply was perused which was not found to
be satisfactory. Why it was not found to be satisfactory ought to
have been disclosed, which has not been done in the present case.
Issuance of notice to show cause and requirement of furnishing
reply is not to be an empty formality. The purpose would not be
achieved if the reply is not considered while passing the order.
 As we have already stated, the contract was in
operation at the time when the impugned order was passed, or else
the question of rescinding the contract would not have been there.
The extension granted by the opp. parties from time to time,
without imposing any cost or penalty on the petitioner, would itself
make it clear that the delay was not due to the fault of the
petitioner but because of the shortcoming or fault of the opp.
parties.
However, on merits, we find that the impugned order
is devoid of any reason and on this ground alone the order
deserves to be quashed. Merely completing the formality of giving
notice is not sufficient for complying with the principles of natural 
justice, as once after the notice is issued and a detailed reply is
given by the party, the authority is duty bound to pass a reasoned
order only after considering the contents of the reply, and not by
whimsically stating that the reply furnished was not found to be
satisfactory.
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20466 of 2015
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.

M/s. East Coast Constructions
Industries Ltd, Odisha … Petitioner
 -Versus
State
of Odisha and others … Opp.Parties

 P R E S E N T:
 THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VINEET SARAN
 AND
 THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
Decided on : 04.04.2016
Citation:AIR 2016(NOC) 456 Orissa

Print Page

Whether court can rescind contract as per S 28 of specific relief Act if decree holder fails to deposit balance consideration?

 In the case of Chanda (supra) though there was no specific direction of the Trial Court to the decree holder to pay the sale consideration within a particular time but the conduct of the decree holder in not depositing the amount for a long six years was held to be full of mala fide. The contention of the plaintiff that there was no specific direction given to the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period was not found justified. The direction of the Trial Court was to execute the sale-deed within two months from the date of the decree on payment of balance of sale consideration. It was held that the payment of balance sale consideration was a condition precedent for execution of the sale-deed. It was implicit in the direction that the decree holder was required to deposit the balance consideration in the first instance and it was only then the judgment debtors were required to execute the sale-deed. Since the decree holder did not deposit the balance amount, the order of the Trial Court in rescinding the original contract was found perfectly in order.

Equivalent Citation: AIR2015All180, 2015(6) ALJ 27, 2015 (111) ALR 889, 2015 129 RD144,AIR 2015 ALLAH180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Writ-C No. 57407 of 2008

Decided On: 26.05.2015

Radhey Shyam and Ors. Vs.  Harendra Pal Rathi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Sunita Agarwal, J.

Print Page