THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK

(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DIVISION BENCH: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWANATH SOMADDER, CHIEF JUSTICE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Com. A. No. 1 of 2025

Nil Kumar Pradhan,

S/o Late Ratna Kumar Pradhan,

Resident of Jitlang,

Central Pandem,

P.O. Duga,

Sikkim. ..... Appellant

versus

1. State of Sikkim,

Through the Chief Secretary,

Government of Sikkim.

2. Secretary,

Roads and Bridges Department,

Government of Sikkim,

Gangtok. ….. Respondents

Appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act,

2015.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Mr. D.K. Siwakoti, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the Appellant.

Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Thinlay

Dorjee Bhutia, Government Advocate for the Respondents.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and

Com. A. No. 2 of 2025

Dil Bahadur Pradhan,

S/o Late Dhan Bahadur Pradhan,

Resident of Jitlang,

Central Pandem,

P.O. Duga, P.S. Rangpo,

Sikkim. ..... Appellant

versus

1. State of Sikkim,

Through the Chief Secretary,

Government of Sikkim,

Gangtok.

2

Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 Nil Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another

Com. A. No. 2 of 2025 Dil Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another

2. Roads and Bridges Department,

Through the Secretary,

Government of Sikkim,

Gangtok, Sikkim. ….. Respondents

Appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act,

2015.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Mr. D.K. Siwakoti, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the Appellant.

Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Thinlay

Dorjee Bhutia, Government Advocate for the Respondents.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J U D G M E N T

Date of Hearing : 28.10.2025 & 06.11.2025

Date of Judgment : 10.12.2025

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

This judgment shall dispose of two connected

Commercial Appeals, i.e., Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 and Com.

A. No. 2 of 2025, as they raise identical issues. In both the

Commercial Appeals, the appellants filed identical suits for

compensation under section 9 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 read with section 21 of the Specific Relief

Act, 1963, seeking compensation of Rs.20,49,576.52 each.

Commercial Suit No.1 of 2024 related to a Notice Inviting

Tender (NIT) for construction of road from Rangpo-Duga to

Lower Jitlang in East Sikkim. Commercial Suit No.2 of 2024

related to a NIT for construction of road from Bhutia

Turning to Sitey Jitlang in East Sikkim.

3

Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 Nil Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another

Com. A. No. 2 of 2025 Dil Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another

2. In both the Commercial Suits, the appellants had

participated in the tender process, quoted 16 per cent above

the estimated amount and declared successful bidders.

Pursuant thereto, work orders dated 24.12.2018 were issued

to them by the respondent no.2, i.e, the Roads and Bridges

Department.

3. The work orders stated , “The

Government/Competent authority has approved to award the

work to you at 16% (ABOVE) rate on the value of work. Hence,

you are hereby directed to contact the undersigned for

entering into an agreement and for further instructions for

commencement of the work within 15 (Fifteen) days from the

issue of this work order, failing which the work order shall be

cancelled and the Security Deposit shall be forfeited. The

stipulated time period for completion of work shall commence

from the 15

th days (sic) of the date of issue of this work

order.”

4. Admittedly, the appellants did not enter into any

agreements as stipulated in the work order. Instead, the

appellants entered into equipment rental agreements with

one Khaling Enterprise for hiring JCB140/JCB Black

Loader/JCB 205/Breaker/Bucket and Tipper for carrying

out construction activities. According to the appellants, the

4

Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 Nil Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another

Com. A. No. 2 of 2025 Dil Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another

major portion of the area where proposed road had to be

constructed fell within the forest land and so they requested

the Roads and Bridges Department to hand over the site

without any hinderence.

5. On 24.12.2018 (in Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2024)

and 26.12.2018 (in Commercial Suit No. 2 of 2024), the

Roads and Bridges Department requested the Fores t

Department for deputation of field officers for joint

inspection for assessment and marking of trees. The

appellants thereafter approached the Office of the Forest

Department and Land Revenue Departments after which

joint inspections were conducted which revealed further

impediments. According to the appellants, they tried

resolving these impediments pursuing various Government

Departments by writing representations and visiting the

officers. Both the appellants made the last of such

representations to the Roads and Bridges Department on

14.07.2020. According to the appellants, because of the

delay in providing the site for construction of the road they

sufferred losses to the extent of the compensation sought.

6. The learned Commercial Court framed four

identical issues in the commercial suits and examined each

of them based on the evidence led. The learned Commercial

5

Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 Nil Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another

Com. A. No. 2 of 2025 Dil Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another

Court was of the view that though the appellant s had

succeeded in the NIT and work orders issued to them, they

had admittedly failed to enter into the agreements as

stipulated in the work orders as well as in the Sikkim Public

Works Manual, 2009. It was, therefore held that the work

orders did not culminate into agreements. The learned

Commercial Court was of the view that:-

(i) the NIT floated by the Roads and Bridges Department

were the invitations of offers by which the eligible

contractors were required to quote their prices for

construction of the concerned roads;

(ii) the rates quoted by the appellants were accepted

conditionally by the Roads & Bridges Department;

(iii) for acceptance to be complete, the appellants were

required to contact the concerned Assistant Engineer

within fifteen days for execution of the agreements and

obtain further instructions for commencement of the

work which they did not;

(iv) the work orders stipulated that in the event the

appellants failed to execute the agreement and obtain

further instructions for commencement of the work, the

work orders shall be cancelled and security deposit

forfeited.

6

Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 Nil Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another

Com. A. No. 2 of 2025 Dil Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another

(v) when offer and acceptance is incomplete, a valid

contract cannot come into operation and consequently

the work order cannot be treated as a valid contract.

7. The learned Commercial Court, therefore, held the

first issue against the appellants concluding that the

appellants and the Roads and Bridges Department had not

entered into any agreement for construction of the roads.

8. The second issue examined by the learned

Commercial Court was whether the failure to pay

compensation to the Forest Departmnt led to the non -

execution of the road construction work. It was held that

permission of the Forest Department was essential for

commencement of construction inside the reserve forest.

However, as there was no valid contract or agreement

between the parties, obtaining NOC from t he Forest

Department was inconsequential. Resultantly, the second

issue was also held against the appellants.

9. The third issue was whether the appellants had

suffered a loss of Rs.20,49,576.52 each , due to non-

execution of the construction of roads and whether the

Roads and Bridges Department was liable to pay the same

with pendente lite and further interest. The learned

Commercial Court held that the evidence supported the

7

Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 Nil Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another

Com. A. No. 2 of 2025 Dil Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another

appellants’ statement that they had hired equipments and

machinery from Khaling Enterprise and had made payment

of rupees five lakhs as advance to them. However, it was

held that the appellants could not expect the Roads and

Bridges Department to compensate them as there was no

valid contract between them. It was held that the actions

taken by the appellants were at their own risk and it could

not be attributed to the Roads and Bridges Department. The

learned Commercial Court held that the appellants ought to

have obtained designs, drawings, Detailed Project Report

(DPR) and other detailed instructions from the Roads and

Bridges Department before hiring equipments and

machinery and making other expenditures. Accordingly, the

commercial suits were dismissed by judgments dated

27.12.2024.

10. After having heard the learned Counsel for the

parties, we are of the view that the judgments passed by the

learned Commercial Court are well reasoned. The facts have

not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellants.

He reiterated the same submissions made before the learned

Commercial Court. The facts ascertained through the

process of trial can result in the same conclusion as made

by the learned Commercial Court.

8

Com. A. No. 1 of 2025 Nil Kumar Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another

Com. A. No. 2 of 2025 Dil Bahadur Pradhan vs. State of Sikkim & Another

11. Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 invoked

by the appellants relates to the power of the Courts to award

compensation only in certain cases when compensation is

sought for in addition to the prayer for specific performance

of a contract. Although, the appellants have sought for

compensation they have not sought for any specific

performance of any contract in their plaints. This was

impermissible. As the learned Commercial Court has held

that there was no contract between the appellants and the

respondents herein, the question of specific performance

would not arise and resultantly, no compensation could be

awarded under section 21. The learned Commercial Court

has correctly dismissed the suits of the appellant.

12. Accordingly, both the Commercial Appeals are

liable to be dismissed and stand accordingly dismissed. The

records of the learned Commercial Court be re mitted

forthwith. No order as to costs.

(Bhaskar Raj Pradhan) (Biswanath Somadder)

Judge Chief Justice

Approved for reporting: Yes

Internet: Yes

bp