The court upheld the binding nature of the contract, ruling that the Plaintiff's claims were untenable due to failure to exercise contractual options and were barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

Manjusha Deshpande, J.

The Appellant herein is the original Plaintiff and is a Firm carrying on business as Civil Engineer and Contractors. Appellant has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Small Causes Court, Pune in Special Civil Suit No.272/1999 dated 10 August 2008.

2. The prayers sought by the Appellant as under:

a) Pay Rs..2,05,74,050/- to the Plaintiffs.

b) declare that the recovery towards interest charges on mobilization advance, charges for use of electricity generator as shown in the final bill is illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary and that the plaintiffs are not liable to pay the same and the defendants are not entitled to recover the same from the plaintiffs.

c) declare that the Defendants shall not encash Bank Guarantees given by the plaintiffs towards security deposits as postponement of recovery of electricity charges.

d) declare that the Defendants are not entitled to recover any amount from the plaintiffs as proposed with effect from 1.12.88 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 1000/- per day with effect from 20.1.90.

e) order and direct and Defendants to refund the amount of said penalty recovered from the plaintiffs with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 5.8.92.

f) Pay cost of the suit to the plaintiffs.

g) pay interest at the rate of Rs. 18 P.C. P.A. from the date of suit till realization.

h) Such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit may be ordered.

3. The original Plaintiff had filed Special Civil Suit No.272 of 1999, with prayers to pay Rs. 2,05,74,050/- to the Plaintiff by the Defendants and to declare that the Defendants are not entitled to recover interest on mobilization advance and charges for use of electricity generator, as shown in the final bill. The Plaintiff has further prayed to declare that the Defendants shall not encash Bank Guarantee given by the Plaintiff, to declare that Defendants are not entitled to recover any amount from Plaintiff as proposed with effect from 1 April 1988 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per day which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 1000/- per day on 20 January 1990, and to direct the refund of amount from penalty recovered from Plaintiff with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 5 August 1992, with other reliefs.

4. The Defendants herein resisted the suit by filing their Written Statement. Evidence was led by both the parties and after hearing both the parties the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune has been pleased to dismiss the suit filed by the Plaintiff by its judgment and decree dated 10 April 2008. It is against this Judgment the present Appellant/Plaintiff has filed this First Appeal.

5. The brief facts leading to the present litigation is as under:

(For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their status before the Court below)

Respondent Nos.2 to 5 (Original Defendants) had invited a tender for construction of Manik Doh Hydro Electrical Power House Building and Appurtenant work at the foot of Manik Doh Dam, Pune. The Plaintiff (Appellant herein) made an offer of Rs. 81,34,594/- in response to the said Tender. The said offer was accepted and accordingly the Defendants entered into a contract with the Plaintiff, vide Agreement No.B-I/KI-2 H.O. 1 of 1986-87. As per the Tender conditions there could not be any negotiations regarding the conditions and other terms in the Agreement. After the parties entered into an Agreement, the Plaintiff proceeded with the work. According to the Plaintiff some of the terms/clauses in the contract were unfair, unreasonable, unjust and oppressive. The actual work order was issued on 21 April 1986. The Plaintiff started execution of work on 24 April 1986. The work could not gain speed on account of onset of monsoon season. No work was possible during the monsoon season. The work could commence only after the monsoon season was over some time in October 1986. As a result, the Plaintiff could complete excavation which was necessary part of the wor