The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to extra work payment and interest on delayed payments under the terms of the contract and the Interest Act, 1978.

JUDGMENT

S.C. Gupte, J. - The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.1,09,78,024 together with pendente lite and post decree interest. The claim arises out of a construction contract.

2. The Defendants had invited tenders for construction of 650 quarters for policemen of SRPF Group IX at Amravati, with infrastructural amenities. The Plaintiff was the successful bidder. The construction contract was evidenced by work order dated 7 November 1996 and a formal contract agreement of the same date, i.e. 7 November 1996. Under the contract, the date of commencement of work was 7 November 1996, whereas the time for completion of the contract work was 36 months. Based on the revised quantum of scope of work, the original contract value of Rs.15,29,54,891 was revised by the Defendants to Rs.21,50,35,706. The original stipulated date of completion was extended upto 19 December 1999. These facts are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the Plaintiff completed the entire work within the stipulated date of completion. There is no dispute as to the quality of the work carried out by the Plaintiff. The bills submitted by the Plaintiff from time to time, both as running bills and as final bill, were recommended for payment by the project management consultant, whose job was to oversee the work. The grievance of the Plaintiff pertains to three individual items of work for which payment was not made by the Defendants and a claim for excess amount recovered by the Defendants from mobilisation advance given by the Defendants to the Plaintiff and diverse claims of interest, i.e. interest on delayed payments on three items, namely, (i) running account bills, which were paid by the Defendants with delay, (ii) Escalation bills (labour, material, POL) paid with delay, and (iii) Escalation bills (star rate) paid with delay, and interest till filing of the suit on unpaid amounts.

3. The claims are contested by the Defendants on merits. So far as the unpaid items of work are concerned, it is the case of the Defendants that the amounts were not due or payable having regard to the terms of the contract. So far as the claim for amount of interest recovered from mobilisation advance is concerned, it is contested by the Defendants on merits on the basis of the relevant stipulation in the construction contract. As regards interest for delayed payments, it is the case of the Defendants that there was no stipulated date of payment save and except for the final bill; the period mentioned in the contract in respect of payment of running account bills was an approximate period, requiring simply payment within the indicated period, if possible.

4. The following issues were framed by this court by its order dated 10 September 2014:

(1) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they have carried out extra work under the contract and they were entitled to be paid for the extra work?

(2) If the answer to issue no.1 is in the affirmative, then at what rate is the Plaintiffs entitled to be paid?

(3) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the Defendants delayed in paying the running account bills and therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled to interest on those delayed bills?

(4) If the answer to issue no.3 is in the affirmative, then at what rate interest is the Plaintiffs entitled to be paid?

(5) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the Defendants have deducted excess interest on the mobilisation advance and the amount of excess recovered has to be paid back to the Plaintiffs and if so, how much?

(6) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.1,09,78,024/-?

(7) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to interest @ 19% p.a. and for what period?

(8) What decree? What order?

5. Issue Nos.1 and 2 inter alia deal with two particular items of extra work, for which claim has been made by the Plaintiff. The extra works are said to be (i) additional depth of foundation constructed by the Defendants and (ii) excess quantities of pipelines laid by the De