Decided on June 10,1997

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



SURINDER SARUP,J. - (1.)A contract agreement bearing No.l4/EE/88 -89 for construction of Type -Ill, 8 Nos. General Pool Accommodation at Phagli, Shimla including development of site was executed .between Sh. V.K. Sood, claimant -contractor and for and on behalf of President of India by the Executive Engineer, Shimla Central Division CPWD, Shimla. The total tendered amount was to the tone of Rs.9,71,498/ -. The date of start in the contract agreement was 5.9.1988 and completion was 4.11.1989
(2.)After the observance of the codal formalities the claimant - contractor was required to start the work within ten days after the date of allotment thereof, which in the present case was allotted vide a letter dated 25.8.1988 meaning thereby that the plaintiff had to start the work w.e.f. 4/5thSeptember,1988.
(3.)As per the condition of the contract, standard designs for the work was to be submitted by the claimant -contractor and one submitted by him was not adequate as per the standard practice/codal requirements as submitted in the agreement. The design submitted by him was received back from the Surveyor of work, Chandigarh Central Circle, CPWD, Chandigarh and thereafter it was returned to him with the direction to resubmit the same, but he did not do so. In these circumstances, the department was left with no other option but to design the buildings and issued the detailed structure designs in the interest of work. However, due to heavy rain and snowfall during the month of November,1988, some trees had been uprooted and fell down on the site of the work and to remove the same, the Union of India had to seek the permission of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Thus the claimant was informed to deploy some other item of work of the same contract. The .site after removal of trees etc. was cleared on 30.8.1989. Inspite of the directions of the department, the contractor failed to re -start the work. Moreover, inspite of the best cooperation and assistance rendered by the officials of the Union of India, yet the claimant -contractor failed to progress the work so much so that it was so poor and far from satisfactory right from the very beginning. In order to accelerate the progress of the work, the Union of India issued the show cause notice through the concerned officer vide letters dated 11.12.1989, 4.8.1990. 19.11.1990, 1.6.1991 and 17.7.1991, but even on this the claimant -contractor failed to discharge his contractual liability and failed to progress the execution of work as per this period of contract agreement. In the circumstances the Union of India was left with no other option but to resort Clause -3 of the agreement and thus on 7.3.l992, the contract was rescinded and the remaining work at the site was decided to be executed as per the terms and conditions of the contract agreement. The balance work left unexecuted at the site was executed through Shri Chander Shekhat, Government Contractor and after working out the difference of value of balance work, a sum -of Rs.5,96,902/ - was left for the completion of the said work through some other Agency.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.