Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.80 – Notice – AppellantGovernment Contractor and respondent-State entered into an agreement for strengthening the two-line pavement of NH7 – Dispute arose between the parties – Superintending Engineer partially terminated the contract on the ground that the appellant had not shown progress in the project – Writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed – Writ appeal was also dismissed – Appellant had issued a legal notice dated 14.01.2000 and two letters on different dates to the respondents prior to the disposal of the writ appeal – After dismissal of the writ appeal, the appellant filed a civil suit against the respondents – Trial Court found substantial compliance of s.80 CPC – However, the High Court found that provisions of s.
80 CPC were not complied with – In appeal, the State contended that no notice was issued u/s. 80 CPC for the reason that none of the three notices/letters of the appellant had stated that they were u/s. 80 CPC – Held: The notice was duly served upon the authorities – Cause of Action was sufficiently set out in the said notice, which was the illegality of the partial termination of the contract – A notice does not have to state the section under which it is made so long as the ingredients of sub-section (3) of s.80 are met – It is admitted that there was no need for any legal notice before filing the writ appeal – The notice, therefore, that was sent on 14.01.2000, was only u/s. 80 CPC in the event the writ appeal failed and a suit would have to be filed – The judgment of the trial Court was correct – Thus, impugned judgment of the High Court set aside and matter remitted back to the High Court to dispose of appeals on merits.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. On a perusal of the notice dated 14.01.2000, it is clear that this is a legal notice sent by a lawyer of the appellant to the authorities concerned. It is not disputed that it was by registered A.D. and served upon the authorities. There is also no dispute that the cause of action is sufficiently set out in the said notice, which is the illegality of the partial termination of the contract on 16.12.1999. It was also made clear that though a Writ Appeal at that point of time was going to be filed against the Writ Petition dismissal, yet this would be a notice to take “appropriate legal action” against the State. There is no doubt, whatsoever, that more than two months have elapsed from the date of this notice, after which the Suit has been filed. In fact, the Suit was filed long after, on 12.09.2002. Quite apart from this, on 29.01.2000 also, the letter of the appellant made it clear to the Divisional Engineer that not only is the partial termination bad in law but that the payments due for work would have to be made. [Para 15] [960-E-G]
2. It is clear, therefore, that there is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 80 CPC as has been introduced by the Amendment Act introducing section 80(3) into the Statute book. The respondents’ argument that section 80 is not expressly referred to and that the legal notice and letters were written prior to the disposal of the Writ Appeal have no legs to stand on. This is for the reason that a notice does not have to state the section under which it is made so long as the ingredients of sub-section
(3) of section 80 are met. It is admitted that there was no need for any legal notice before filing the Writ Appeal. The notice, therefore, that was sent on 14.01.2000, was only under Section
80 CPC in the event the Writ Appeal failed and a Suit would have to be filed. [Para 16] [960-H; 961-A-C]
Dhian Singh Sobha Singh & Another v. Union of India [1958] SCR 781 ; Vithalbhai (P) Ltd. v. Union Bank of India (2005) 4 SCC 315 : [2005] 2 SCR 680 ;
Ghanshyam Dass and Others v. Dominion of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 46 : [1984] 3 SCR 229 ; State of A.P. and Others v. Pioneer Builders, A.P. (2006) 12 SCC
119 : [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 571 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.