IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
Thiru.P.Janakiraman, Civil Engineering Contractor - Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
Civil Suit (Comm.Div).Nos.817 and 818 of 2012 and Civil Suit (Comm.Div).No.576 of 2014 and Appln.Nos.3192 and 3193 of 2014
Decided on : 03-01-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff is a class-i contractor engaged in road construction. (Para 1 , 10 , 36 , 48) |
| 2. details of contract execution and associated delays. (Para 3 , 14 , 38 , 68 , 92) |
| 3. plaintiff's argument focuses on non-handling of site and resultant losses. (Para 6 , 19 , 23 , 67 , 81) |
| 4. court's findings on breach of contract and responsibility. (Para 172 , 174 , 182) |
| 5. final conclusion: suits are dismissed. (Para 203) |
JUDGMENT :
Pleadings in C.S.No.817 of 2012:
Plaint averments:
The plaintiff is engaged in the business of undertaking contracts for laying of roads, construction of bridges, culverts and other allied civil works. The plaintiff is a Class-I contractor in the Highways Department, State Level in the State of Tamil Nadu and has executed several Government works for Highways and other Department's road works.
2. The Department is the Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Superintending Engineer, Highways, Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Circle, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035 and the Divisional Engineer, Highways, Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan, Division-1, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
3. The Chief Engineer, Highways, METRO, Alandur, Chennai-600 016, had invited tenders for the work of widening two lane to four lane and strengthening of Mount- Madipakkam Road, K.M.1/6--3/0". The plaintiff in his usual course of business, submitted his tender for the above work on 15.04.2008, while evaluating the tenders by the Chief Engineer, Highways, Metro, Chennai-600 016. The plaintiff was found to be the lower tenderer among others. The Chief Engineer, Highways, Metro, Chennai, had issued the intimation of acceptance of plaintiff's tender for a contract value of Rs.2,94,74,653/- by Letter No.784/2008/SDO, dated 14.08.2008. The agreement for the same had been concluded on 03.11.2008 (L.S.Agreement No.27/2008-2009, dated 03.11.2008). The period of contract fixed for completion was 12 months as per the above agreement.
4. The Agreement had 4 schedules which forms part of the contract, namely Schedule A to D. Schedule A -- contains the description of items to be executed by the plaintiff, the quantity to be executed, the relevant MORT & H Clauses and the rates for the work to be executed. Schedule-B contains list of drawings i.e. Key map, typical cross section of Road -- two numbers and cross section of Culvert 1 No. Schedule-C contains descriptive specification report, descriptive source of materials and lead statement and special conditions of contract. Schedule-D contains the Rules for the provisions of health and sanitary arrangements for workers.
5. The date of commencement of the work as 03.11.2008. The period of contract for completion was 12 months. Targeted date of completion was 02.11.2009 and date of completion of work was 18.03.2011.
6. The details for the delay in completion of the subject work are as follows:
(a) In the letter dated 22.05.2009, the plaintiff has submitted to the second defendant as follows:
The entire length of the road i.e. K.M 1/6 - 3/0 lies in built-up area, encroachments and market area. Hence, it was not possible to commence the work. Months were passing, but the Department had not taken any tangible action to acquire the required area of land for the widening work. Repeatedly, the petitioner was approaching the concerned Departmental Engineers to give free site for the work, in person and through letters. No reply was received by the plaintiff. Unnecessarily, the plaintiff was put to financial hardship and loss and the same has to be compensated to the plaintiff by the Department. Hence, the plaintiff requested that the Divisional Engineer (H), CMDP, Division-1, to acquire the required lands, evict the encroachments and also the market and pave way to proceed with the work, or, close the contract and settle the plaintiff's account smoothly as per the Rules in force. There was no response from the second defendant.
(b) Again, the plaintiff, by letter dated 21.07.2009 had reques
Amar Nath Dogra Vs. Union of India
Contractors cannot claim damages for delays caused by their own inaction or failure to meet contractual obligations, even if land acquisition delays occur.
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.
Point of law: When the appeal is presented in terms of Section 96 CPC and when this Court is considering this appeal not only as a last Court of fact but also in terms of law, it is open for the appe....
Contractual obligations regarding delayed construction projects must consider the contractor's contributions to delays and enforceability of claims under economic duress.
Arbitral awards under Section 34 set aside in part for patent illegality where claims lack evidence of loss; sustained for plausible delay findings, scope changes; severability applies to separable p....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.