Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 777
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
M/s. National Building Construction – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.10269 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.15862 of 2010)
Decided On : 23-08-2017
For the Appellant : Amit Sharma, Dipesh Sinha, Ms. Ayiala Imti, Advs.
For the Respondents: Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai, Advs.
IMPORTANT POINT
Finding of fact in consonance with pleadings and evidence cannot be faulted with.
Headnote:Government contract – Correction of typographical error in rates is not modification of rates – a corrected rate in tune with rates for previous and later years – Finding of fact by High Court – In consonance with pleadings and evidences – No infirmity. (Para 10, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant had submitted a tender for work pertaining to construction of one Nishanghat Minor Irrigation Tank in pursuance of a notice issued by respondent No.1 - State of Maharashtra. After the appellant's tender was approved and work order dated 21st December, 1978 was issued by the State in favour of the appellant, the parties executed an agreement at Nagpur.
After completion of the contract work final bill was paid to the appellant which the appellant disputed on the ground that it had performed extra work over and above the tendered work, for which payment was not included. Feeling aggrieved by the alleged shortfall in payment and unable to settle the dispute with the respondents, the appellant filed a suit against the respondents
The Trial Court passed a decree in favour of the appellant.
The High Court partly allowed the respondents' appeal, modifying the decision of the Trial Court and reducing the decreetal amount.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed with cost.
JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 1st September, 2009, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in First Appeal No.312 of 1992 whereby the High Court has partly modified the decree passed by the Trial Court and negatived Claim Nos.1 and 3 set up by the appellant.
2. The appellant, a partnership firm engaged in civil construction works, had submitted a tender for work pertaining to construction of one Nishanghat Minor Irrigation Tank in pursuance of a notice issued by respondent No.1 - State of Maharashtra. After the appellant's tender was approved and work order dated 21st December, 1978 was issued by the State in favour of the appellant, the parties executed an agreement at Nagpur. After completion of the contract work on 16th June, 1982, final bill was paid to the appellant on 22nd October, 1982, which the appellant disputed on the ground that it had performed extra work over and above the tendered work, for which payment was not included. Feeling aggrieved by the alleged shortfall in payment and unable to settle the dispute with the respondents, the appellant filed a suit against the respondents before the Court of 6th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur being Special Civil Suit No.279 of 1985, inter alia seeking a decree for amounts due to it under the following heads of claim:
a. Claim 1: Unpaid amounts arising out of difference in government-prescribed rates for work of excess stone revetment/pitching, amounting to Rs. 1,76,199.28/-
b. Claim 2: Unpaid amounts for difference in rates relating to excavation work, amounting to Rs. 90,165/-
c. Claim 3: Unpaid amounts for extra lead for water works, amounting to Rs. 80,000/- and
d. Claim 4: Unpaid amounts for extra lead for sand, amounting to Rs. 9900/-
In addition, the appellant also claimed interest on the claim amount, of Rs. 1,42,505.60, calculated at 15% p.a. from 22nd October, 1982 till the date of filing the suit. With interest, the aggregate claim of the appellant was Rs. 4,98, 769.86/-.
3. Each of the above claims was specifically challenged by the respondents in their written statement. After considering the rival contentions and the evidence on record, the Trial Court passed a decree in favour of the appellant on 29th October, 1991, the operative part of which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"ORDER
1] Suit is decreed with costs.
2] Defendants do pay Rs. 4,98,769.87 to the plaintiff.
3] The decreetal amount to carry future interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its actual realization.
4] Decree be drawn accordingly."
4. The respondents preferred an appeal against the aforesaid decree passed by the Trial Court before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, being First Appeal No.312 of 1992. Over the course of hearing, the learned Single Judge framed the following points for consideration:
"I) Whether the trial Court was justified in granting the claim of Rs. 1,76,199/towards pitching?
II) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an amount of Rs. 90,165/for the excavation of the soft rock of the strata?
III) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an amount of Rs. 80,000/for additional lead for water?
IV) Whether the grant of compensation @ Rs. 9,900/towards lead for sand was justified?
V) What order?"
5. Ultimately, the High Court by its judgment and decree dated 1st September, 2009 partly allowed the respondents' appeal, modifying the decision of the Trial Court and reducing the decreetal amount as under:
"23. For the reasons aforesaid, the first appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagpur on 29.10.1991 is hereby modified. It is held that the respondent plaintiff would not be entitled to claim an amount of Rs. 1,76,199/towards pitching an amount of Rs. 80,000/for additional lead of water. The findings recorded by the trial Court in regard to the entitlement of plaintiff to an amount of Rs. 90,165/for excavation of so
