Back
Allahbad High Court
R.B.MISRA,K.C.AGRAWAL
State of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Chandra Gupta and Co. - Respondent
Decided On : 05/04/1976
CONTRACT - Construction Contract - Extra Work - Reinforced Concrete Work - Payment - Limitation - Security Deposit - Forfeiture.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a contractor, entered into a contract with the State of U.P. for the construction of a Tail Fall V.R.B. Plaintiff claimed payment for extra work done, including reinforced concrete work (R.C.C.), which was not provided for in the contract. The State disputed the claim and also deducted an amount from the final bill as penalty for not completing the work within time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had done R.C.C. work as claimed and was entitled to payment for the same. The court also held that the State was not entitled to forfeit the security deposit as it had not suffered any damage due to the plaintiff's delay in completing the work.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to payment for the extra work done, including R.C.C. work? 2. Whether the State was entitled to deduct an amount from the final bill as penalty for not completing the work within time? 3. Whether the State was entitled to forfeit the security deposit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to payment for the R.C.C. work done as it was extra work not provided for in the contract. The court relied on the definition of R.C.C. and the fact that steel bars were used in the work. 2. The court held that the State was not entitled to deduct an amount from the final bill as penalty for not completing the work within time as it had not suffered any damage due to the delay. 3. The court held that the State was not entitled to forfeit the security deposit as it was taken to ensure due performance of the contract and the State had not suffered any loss due to the plaintiff's default.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the State's appeal and allowed the plaintiff's cross-objection in part. The decree of the lower court was modified, and the suit was decreed for a further sum of Rs. 6,650 with interest.
K. C. AGRAWAL, J. :- This is a defendants appeal from the judgment and decree dated 22-8-1964 passed by
the learned Additional Civil Judge, Meerut, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent partly for a sum of Rs. 14,283. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent in the following circumstances.
2. The Executive Engineer, Ganges Canal, Meerut Division, Meerut, issued a notice dated 13th August, 1957, inviting tenders for constructing a new Tail Fall V. R. B. at Mile 7-0-330 of Jani Escape. The tender submitted by the plaintiff-respondent, in pursuance of the aforesaid notice, was accepted on the 19th of August, 1957, and a formal contract in that behalf was, thereafter, executed on November 4, 1957. The plaintiff started the work, but as the officers of the defendant began to harass him, he had to stop it on January 24, 1958. Upon the understanding arrived at, the work was resumed soon thereafter but it was finally again stopped by the plaintiff on March 21, 1958. Admittedly, the plaintiff had not executed the entire work undertaken by him under the contract. It was, thereafter, got done by the defendant through another agency. The plaintiff, however, filed the suit, giving rise to the present appeal, for recovery of a sum of Rupees 34,780,71 Paise. Schedules A to H appended to the plaint give the details of the amount claimed in the plaint. As in the present appeal we are concerned only with the claims under Schedules B. D. F. G and H, we need not mention the facts relating to other Schedules. The claim under Schedule B was for the payment of Rs. 13,770 regarding reinforced concrete work (briefly stated as R.C.C), which according to the plaintiff was extra work not otherwise provided for in the contract. The total quantity of the work was 1,02000 Cft. The claim has been made @ 35% per Cft., whereas the payment was made only @ 21.50% Cft. The claim under Schedule D was for a sum of Rs. 1265.08 Paise regarding the amount unduly recovered. Under Schedule F, the plaintiff claimed Rs. 283 on account of shuttering that was done by the plaintiff, it had been left and could not be removed due to the position being behind glacis. Schedule G was for the sum of Rs. 2,148 as the price of the stores which had been supplied by the plaintiff for execution of the work, to the Government. The last item under Schedule H was for the recovery of Rs. 6,650, which had been deducted by the defendant from the bill paid on 15-3-1959 by way of penalty.
3. The suit was contested by the State of U. P. and it was denied that the plaintiff was entitled to any amount claimed in the plaint. The defendant disputed that the plaintiff had done any extra work as claimed by him in Schedule B. The claims made under other Schedules were also controverted. Admitting that a sum of Rs. 6,650 had been deducted out of the amount payable to the plaintiff, the defendant stated in the written statement that as the plaintiff was guilty of having not performed the contract within time the defendant had authority under the contract executed between the plaintiff and the defendant to deduct the amount.
4. As stated above, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 14,283 only. This decree was in respect of the amounts claimed under Schedules B and F. In respect of amounts claimed under other Schedules, the finding given by the court below is that the plaintiff could not prove that he was entitled to it and, therefore, the suit regarding them was liable to be dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the State of U. P. has filed the present appeal challenging the decree only in respect of Schedule B. The appeal is accordingly, valued at Rs. 13,770. The plaintiff has filed a Cross-Objection valuing it at Rupees 10,352 for the items covered by Schedules D. F, G and H.
5. We propose to lake up the appeal filed by the State of U. P. first. As stated above, the claim under Schedule B was in respect of extra work. The det
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
