(Emphasis added).
Thus, it is evident that the aforesaid provisions empower the.Court to award interest at the rate prevailing in the banking.transactions. Thus, impliedly, the court has a power to vary the rate of.interest agreed by the parties. 17. This Court in Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. G..Harischandra Reddy & Anr., AIR 2007 Supreme Court 817, while dealing with.the similar issue held as under:(Emphasis added)
26. In fact, the toll fee under the Tolls Act, 1851 is of.compensatory in nature wherein the Government can reimburse itself the amount which it had spent on construction of road/bridge etc. Clause IV(a) of the statutory notification dated 10.2.1997.which entitled the Government to give present road on toll is reproduced below:(Emphasis added)
It is evident that Clause IV(a) of the Notification dated 10.02.1997 envisages that toll can only be collected as long as total cost of construction and maintenance including interest thereupon is recovered. A person is debarred by law and statutory inhibition as contained in Clause IV(a) of the notification from collection of toll beyond the recovery of cost of construction. 27. Thus, from the above referred provisions, it is evident that toll fee is compensatory in nature and can be collected by the State to reimburse itself the amount it has spent on construction of the.road/bridge etc. The State is competent to levy/collect the toll fee only for the period stipulated under the Statute or till the actual cost of the project with interest etc. is recovered. However, it cannot be a source of revenue for the State. 28. In common parlance, "reimbursement" means and implies restoration of an equivalent for something paid or expanded. Similarly, "Compensation" means anything given to make the equivalent. (See: State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas & Ors., AIR 1969 Supreme Court 634; Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3706; Ghaziabad Development Authority(Supra); and H.U.D.A v. Raj Singh Rana, (Supra). 29. However, in Dwaraka Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1031, it was held that a claim by a contractor for.recovery of amount as damages as expected profit out of contract cannot be disallowed on ground that there was no proof that he suffered actual loss to the extent of amount claimed on account of breach of contract. 30. In M/s. A.T. Brij Paul Singh & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1703, while interpreting the provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972, this Court held that damages can be claimed by a contractor where the Government is proved to have committed breach by improperly rescinding the contract and for estimating the amount of damages, court should make a broad evaluation instead of going into minute details. It was specifically held that where in the works contract, the party entrusting the work committed breach of contract, the contractor is entitled to claim the damages for loss of profit which he expected to earn by undertaking the works contract Claim of expected profits is legally admissible on proof of the breach of contract by the erring party. It was further observed that what would be the measure of profit would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. But that there shall be a reasonable expectation of profit is implicit in a works contract and its loss has to be compensated by way of damages if the other party to the contract is guilty of breach of contract cannot be gainsaid. 31. In B.S.N.L v. Reliance Communication Ltd., (2011) 1 SCC 394, this court held as under:PHASE - I | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | Const. Cost (in lacs) | Supervisio Charges @ 10% | Total (in lacs) | Interest 20% | Total investment of Strs | Upto date investment (in lacs) |
1998-99 | ||||||
6/98 | 75 | 7.5 | 82.50 | 4.12 | 86.62 | 86.62 |
9/98 | 80 | 8.0 | 88.00 | 8.52 | 92.52 | 183.14 |
12/98 | 80 | 8.0 | 88.00 | 12.92 | 100.92 | 284.06 |
3/99 | 80 | 8.0 | 88.00 | 17.32 | 105.32 | 389.32 |
Total | 315 | 31.5 | 346.50 | 42.88 | 389.38 | 389.88 |
1999-2000 | ||||||
6/99 | 110 | 11.0 121 | 23.37 | 144.37 | 533.75 | |
9/99 | 120 | 12.0 | 132.0 | 29.97 | 161.97 | 695.72 |
12/99 | 120 | 12.0 | 132.0 | 36.57 | 168.57 | 864.29 |
3/2000 | 125 | 12.50 | 137.50 | 43.44 | 180.94 | 1045.23 |
Total | 475 | 47.50 | 522.50 | 133.35 | 655.85 | 1045.23 |
Grand Total | 790 | 79.0 | 869.0 | 176.23 | 1045.23 | 1045.23 |
PHASE - II | ||||||
2005-06 | ||||||
6/2005 | 150 | 15.0 | 165 | 8.25 | 173.25 | 173.25 |
9/2005 | 150 | 15.0 | 165 | 16.50 | 181.50 | 354.75 |
Total | 300 | 30.0 | 330 | 24.75 | 354.75 | 354.75 |