2024 SCMR 1816
Suit for recovery of money---Contractual liabilities-- -"But-for" Test---Applicability---Delay caused in completion of project---Determination---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Misreading and non-reading of evidence--- Respondent/plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money along with costs for delay caused in completion of contract due to fault on the part of appellant/authorities---Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court was maintained by High Court---Validity---Nature of delays meant that respondent/plaintiff was eligible for multiple extensions of time, and appellants/authorities granted such extensions---Inclement weather was beyond the control of appellants/authorities and respondent/plaintiff was allowed extension of time---When extensions of time were granted and the project was completed then question was why respondent/ plaintiff initiated recovery proceedings---Such recovery proceedings were nothing but an effort to avoid paying the refund that appellants/authorities were rightfully owed by respondent/plaintiff---"But-for" Test, was to ask if delays by respondent/plaintiff were independent of the delays by appellants/ authorities---If delays of respondent/plaintiff were only happening because appellants/authorities had caused delays. first, then the delays of appellants/authorities were the root cause---If respondent/defendant had also been causing delays regardless of the actions of appellants/ authorities, then the delays of respondent/plaintiff were independent---Applying the "But-For" Testmeant that the delays of respondent/ plaintiff were independent and he was not entitled to recover amount through the suit---Supreme Court set aside conclusions arrived at by High Court as well as Trial Court which were patently improbable and perverse Supreme Court dismissed the suit led by respondent/ plaintiff and set aside the judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below---Appeal was allowed.
0 Comments