SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(AP) 480

P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU
Ande Satyanarayana – Appellant
Versus
Government Of A. P. – Respondent


( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Class-I Contractor. He was awarded three agreements dated 24-12-1991; 7-1-1992 and 30-1-1992 for improvements to Gosthanadi drain in West Godavari District and to restore the drain to its standards. As per the said agreements, the petitioner had to carry out excavation of earth in the drain as per specifications including clearance of all trees, bushes rubbish and other objectionable matter. While sanctioning the estimates for the said three works, the hydraulic date pertaining to the said drain was furnished in the contracts and the number of trees standing in the area was also taken into consideration during execution of the works. There was a review of hydraulic particulars and after taking into consideration the berm flows etc. , the area of. operation was considerably enlarged as it has become necessary to extend the drain over and above the width of the bed originally indicated. There were large number of coconut and palmyrah trees standing in the berms which were required to be cut and removed. It was not contemplated originally that the contractor is bound to execute the extra items of work as directed by the engineer-in-Charge. The extra work was











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top