The court upheld the contractual provisions under Clause 2 and Clause 3 of the Agreement, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the stipulated time for completion of work and the consequences of failure to do so.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. - Ia. 7400/2002 (for delay)

This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the Suit. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

CS (COMM) 517/2016

1. This is a Suit for Recovery filed by the plaintiff / Delhi Development Authority (''DDA'', for short) for Rs.3,23,76,838/-. The prayers made in the Suit are as under:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) grant a decree for an amount of Rs.3,23,76,838/- (it should be Rs.3,23,76,838/- as stated in Para 30 of the plaint) towards penalty under Clause-2 of the Agreement.

(b) grant a decree for Rs.1,62,53,028/- towards the risk and cost expenditure incurred by the Defendant under Clause 3 of the Agreement.

(c) Award interest @18% p.a. from the date of filing of the Suit till realisation.

(d) Costs in the suit may be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Any other order or relief as this Hon''ble Court deems fit and proper may be passed in the facts and circumstances'' of the present case."

2. The facts as noted from the plaint are, the plaintiff / DDA is duly constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. It has multifarious activities including carrying out the construction contracts. The defendant is a registered contractor with the plaintiff authority. The plaintiff invited tenders for work of construction of 102 three bedrooms and 312 two bedrooms houses with cement concrete hollow blocks including internal electrification at Sector 18A, Dwarka, Phase-II, New Delhi. The defendant submitted its tender along with other intending tenderers. The tender of the defendant for the work was accepted by the plaintiff and a written contract, namely Agreement No. 19/EE/WD-12/DDA/2000, was executed between the parties. The date of start of the work was October 30, 1999 and the date of completion was October 29, 2000, i.e., the work was to be completed within a period of 12 months.

3. The salient features of the contract are as under: -

4. The defendant had to construct the houses using cement concrete hollow blocks instead of bricks. The cement concrete hollow blocks were the main constituent of the work. It is averred, that the defendant was under a duty to get the cement concrete hollow blocks manufacturing machine at site on the start of the work. But the defendant failed to bring the machine at site. A meeting was held between the parties on October 25, 1999, wherein defendant promised that the blocks would be brought at site. Vide letter dated November 3, 1999, plaintiff reminded the defendant that during the meeting on October 25, 1999, defendant promised that the cement concrete hollow blocks manufacturing machine shall be brought to the site for installation. But unfortunately, neither the machine nor the accessories have been received at site. In the said letter, it was further stated that the land earmarked for installation of the machine had been shown to the defendant by the Executive Engineer, WD-12, DDA, New Delhi and therefore there was no cause for delay.

5. It is the case of the DDA that the floor plan elevation and section plan were handed over to the defendant on October 23, 1999, i.e., even before the stipulated date of start of the project. The architectural and structural drawings were also handed over before the stipulated date of the start, but the defendant did not pay any heed and did not start the work and the plaintiff was constrained to write anot