ORDER P. P. Naolekar, J. - The following order of the court was passed by P. P. Naolekar, J. The applicant No. 2, Executive Engineer, PWD, Bhopal, invited tenders and consequent thereof the non-applicant Maheshchandra submitted his tenders on 7.11.1985 for three different works in P.W.D. Sub-Divisions No. 1, 2 and 3 at Bhopal. The works related to contract worth Rs. 5 lakhs, three lakhs and 5 lakhs respectively. The tenders submitted by the non-applicant were accepted on 19.11.1985 and 25.11.1985 and intimation thereof was given to the non-applicant by registered letters dated 21.11.1985 and 28.11.1985 and the same was received by the non-applicant on 25.11.1985 and 30.11.1985. In pursuance of the acceptance of tenders, an agreement was executed and thereafter the applicant No. 2 Executive Engineer issued three work orders the non-applicant on 6.12.1985. After receipt of the work orders, the non-applicant shifted his plant and machinery on the spot at Bhopal and took about two weeks time to install the machinery and ultimately installed the machinery on the land taken on lease for the purpose on 26.12.1985. On 26.12.1985, the Executive Engineer issued a letter asking the non-applicant to start the work and in case of delay the non-applicant would be liable to pay compensation. On 4.1.1986, the Executive Engineer issued a letter cancelling all the three contracts and forfeiting the earnest money deposited by the non-applicant. As a result of the cancellation of the contracts, the non-applicant filed an arbitration reference under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 and the rules framed thereunder before the Arbitration Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh Bhopal claiming damages on the ground that there was no breach on the part of the non-applicant : the time was not the essence of the contract and hence termination of the contract is illegal. The non-applicant claimed damages under six heads, viz., (i) earnest money for the three contracts Rs. 13,000/-, (ii) Shifting and erection charges of plant and unit and construction of hutments Rs. 20,000/-; (iii) Rent for two months to the Bhumiswami Rs. 800; (iv) Salary to staff for two months Rs. 19,000/-; (v) Hire charges of plant and machinery as per Ministry of Shipping and Transport, Govt. of India, New Delhi Rs. 1,00,000/-; (vi) Loss of income due to illegal termination of contract Rs. 1,00,000/- totalling Rs. 2,57,800/-. 2. 20,000/-; (iii) Rent for two months to the Bhumiswami Rs. 800; (iv) Salary to staff for two months Rs. 19,000/-; (v) Hire charges of plant and machinery as per Ministry of Shipping and Transport, Govt. of India, New Delhi Rs. 1,00,000/-; (vi) Loss of income due to illegal termination of contract Rs. 1,00,000/- totalling Rs. 2,57,800/-. 2. As per the defence of the applicants, there was an urgency to complete the works; the work was undertaken on an emergency basis, as in the first week of February, 1986 the conference of Indian Road Congress was to be held at Bhopal and, therefore, acceptance of the tenders were communicated to the non-applicant telegraphically; the non-applicant had quoted unworkable rates and was in fact not willing to commence the work; however, as the rates given by him were the lowest, the applicants had no option but to accept the tender of the non-applicant and the non-applicant had no intention to commence the work; on the other hand, the applicant were keen to commence the work immediately in view of the emergency and therefore the non-applicant was asked to attend the offence of the applicant No. 2 on 4.12.1985; the non-applicant assured that he would start the work by 25th December, 1985 and not later than 28th December 1985; however, the non-applicant failed to bring and plant and machinery had to start the work by those dates and hence the letter dated 26.12.1985 was sent to him, as the work was not commenced by the non-applicant; his intention not to commence work was manifest and the applicants had no other way out than to cancel the contract and accordingly the non-applicant's contract was cancelled. 3. The Arbitration Tribunal vide its award dated 22.1.1987 made an award of Rs. 2,42,800/- in favour of the non-applicant with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of recession of the contract till realisation with costs. The Tribunal was of the opinion that there was no justification for cancellation of the contracts by the applicants and as the applicants have committed a breach by cancelling the contract, the Tribunal has given an award for refund, of Rs. 13,000/- deposited as earnest money by the non-applicant Rs. 20,000/- for shifting and erection of plant and unit and construction of hutments; Rs. 800/- for rent to the landlord; Rs. 13,000/- deposited as earnest money by the non-applicant Rs. 20,000/- for shifting and erection of plant and unit and construction of hutments; Rs. 800/- for rent to the landlord; Rs. 19,000/- for keeping permanent staff of 14 persons, i.e., 1 Foreman, 3 Plant Operators, 2 Helpers, 1 Paver Operator, 1 Roller Operator, 4 Supervisors and 1 Dripner driver : Rs. 1,00,000/- as hire charges of plant and machinery for 50 days and Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of income due to illegal termination of the contract. 4. The State has preferred the present revision against the award of the Tribunal. 5. It is argued by the counsel for the State that the findings of the Tribunal that the contract was illegally terminated is contrary to law. It is further contended that the damages under the two heads, i.e., for hire charges of plant and machinery and others expenses and for loss suffered in the income due to illegal termination of the contract, cannot be given consequitively. On the other band, it is argued by the counsel for the non-applicant that this being a revision, the finding regarding quantum of damages awarded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged. 6. The work order was issued on 6.12.1985. Under clause 2 of the agreement, the time allowed to carry out the work as contained in the tender form shall be strictly observed by the contractor and shall be deemed to the essence of the contract; the agreement was for completion of the work within six months which was to recounted after 15 days of the issuance of the work order. Admittedly the work order was issued on 6.12.1985 and thus recounting of the work shall be from 26.12.1985 and the period of six months shall start running from 26.12.1985. Generally in a building contract time is not the essence of the contract but it could be so made by express agreement between the parties. In this case, although the work has to be completed within a period of six months, i.e., 21.6.1986, but there is provision is the contract for extention of contract period. Thus, time was not the essence of the contract and the period could have been extended under given circumstances beyond 21.6.1986. In this case, although the work has to be completed within a period of six months, i.e., 21.6.1986, but there is provision is the contract for extention of contract period. Thus, time was not the essence of the contract and the period could have been extended under given circumstances beyond 21.6.1986. There is evidence on record that the non-applicant and has taken land on lease for installing machinery and equipment and has in fact shifted his machinery for execution of the work, though not before 21.12.1985. But there is no clause in the agreement providing time for commencement of the work and, therefore, the contract could not have been terminated for not commencing the work on or before 21.12.1985. The contract could certainly be cancelled if the party who has to execute the work and perform his part of the contract has expressed his intention to break it or the action or act on the part of the party who has to perform the contract is such which could lead to a reasonable inference and conclusion that he does not want to perform his part of the contract the contract could be terminated. As the non-applicant has shifted his machinery and fitted his plant and had also taken the land on lease, it cannot be assumed that there was no intention on his part to perform his part of the contract and the assumption on the part of the applicants that the non-applicant was not intending to perform his part of the contract is not justified on the basis of the material on record and, therefore, cancellation of the contract by the applicants on 4.1.1986 is illegal and the non-applicant is entitled to claim damages. 7. Under clause 3 of the agreement earnest money could be forfeited on service of notice on the contractor. But in this case, there is no notice given by the applicants to the non-applicant for forfeiture of the earnest money of Rs. 13,000/-. The applicant-State is duly bound to refund the earnest money to the plaintiff-contractor. When the claim is for damages, its purpose is not to compensate the plaintiff for the loss but to deprive the defendant of a benefit. The State has no right to retain the earnest money when the State has committed breach of its obligation in the performance of the contract entered into between the parties. When the claim is for damages, its purpose is not to compensate the plaintiff for the loss but to deprive the defendant of a benefit. The State has no right to retain the earnest money when the State has committed breach of its obligation in the performance of the contract entered into between the parties. The plaintiff contractor is also entitled to have the amount paid towards rent of Rs. 800 as the land was taken on lease for the purpose of the contract and the plaintiff-contractor is required to pay rent for the same. 8. However, the damages granted for shifting and erection charges, salary to the staff and hire charges of the plant and machinery, i.e., unearned profit, which would have been earned had the machinery not been kept idle and also the less of income due to illegal termination of the contract is seriously challenged by the State. As a general principle punitive damages cannot be awarded in a purely contractual action, since the object of the section is not to punish one of the contracting parties who have committed breach of the contract, but to compensate the plaintiff for the loss suffered by him. Punitive damages are not available even if there is deliberate breach of contract. The basic object of damages for breach of contract is to put the plaintiff back in a position, as had the contract been performed he would have been, so far as the monitory situation is concerned. It is permissible for the plaintiff to combine the claim for damages for restitution, installation expenses that is reliance loss and for net loss of profits that is loss of bargain for breach of contract, but the plaintiff is not permitted to combine them so as to recover them more than once for the same loss. The principle against double recovery also applies when plaintiff seeks a combined claim for amount of loss of rent/earning of the installed machinery, hire charges of plaint and machinery, salary to staff, shifting and erection charges of plaint and machinery and loss of bargain (net loss of profit) resulting from the breach of contract. The principle against double recovery also applies when plaintiff seeks a combined claim for amount of loss of rent/earning of the installed machinery, hire charges of plaint and machinery, salary to staff, shifting and erection charges of plaint and machinery and loss of bargain (net loss of profit) resulting from the breach of contract. If the plaintiff has established the value of rent/profit earning of the machinery installed, salary paid to the employees engaged to carry out the contract and charges incurred for installation and erection of the plaint and machinery, he shall not be entitled to that amount and also the net loss of profit, for he would have had to spent the latter amount to acquire the former. The loss of profit could only be founded upon the footing that the capital expenditure had been incurred. The profit would be income on completion of the contract less the expenses required for completion of the contract. If the contract would have been completed, the plaintiff/contractor would have been required to incure those expenses to earn the profit out of the contract. The award of damages for the cost incurred and also loss of profit will result to over compensation if the expenses are not taken into account in computing the profit. 9. The Tribunal has awarded damage for : (i) loss of rent/earning of the machinery installed of Rs. 1,00,000/-; (ii) Rs. 18,000/- salary required to be paid to the employees; (iii) Rs. 20,000/- installation and erection charges of machinery and also Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of earning (net loss of profit). The award of damages for expenditure incurred and for loss of earning (net loss of profit) amounts to double payment for the same loss. The Tribunal is clearly wrong and has misdirected itself in law and facts in awarding damages for items (i), (ii) and (iii) and has committed an error on the face of the record. We also fail to understand as to on what basis salary of the employees and loss of rent or profit of the machinery was calculated by the Tribunal for 50 days. It is clearly established from the evidence of the plaintiff/contractor that the machinery installed for the purposes of the contract and the employees were his staff, and was engaged to carry on his trade and business. It is clearly established from the evidence of the plaintiff/contractor that the machinery installed for the purposes of the contract and the employees were his staff, and was engaged to carry on his trade and business. It has also come on record that the machinery was installed on 26.12.1985 and the contract was terminated on 4.1.1986 therefore, taking 2-3 days were required for installation of the machinery on the site and 2-3 days thereafter for dismantling the machinery installed, it will only be 15 days for which the machinery and workmen were engaged for carrying out the contract. 10. As a result of the discussion aforesaid, the contractor is only entitled to have Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of profit. Rs. 800/- for the rent of the land paid in advance to the landlord and refund of the earnest money deposited with the State of Rs. 13,000/- that is a total amount of Rs. 1,13,800/-. The decree of the Arbitration Tribunal is modified to this extent. The non-applicant/contractor is entitled to recover Rs. 1,13,800/- from the applicants/defendants with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the rescission of the contract till realisation. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs throughout.