- (1.) These appeals are preferred by the U. P. State Electricity Board against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, dated 20. 5.1994 in F. A. F. O. Nos, 8 and o of 1993. By the said judgment, the High Court confirmed the judgment Of the trial court dated 4.9.92. It rejected the objections filed by the appellants and made the Award, dated 26.3.1991, a rule of Court, for Rs. 25,00,000. 00 and interest thereon.
(2.) The main point urged before the trial court and the High Court and again before this Court on behalf of the appellants-State is that, according to the additional conditions of the contract, no compensation was payable for delayed work and it was also specified there that these additional conditions prevail over all other conditions. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the claims for delayed work made by the contractor would fall within the scope of the additional conditions and, therefore, no extra compensation was payable. This contention was not accepted by the civil court and the High Court. The High Court referred to Clause 16 of the additional conditions. It reads as follows: "No delay in completion of civil works is anticipated. If there is any delay in completion of civil works, the contractor shall execute work on same rates/conditions upto a maximum period of 16 months from the date of award of contract which is inclusive of four months as stated against Sl. No. 12 of this order". The High Court held that the case, in fact, fell within the exception provided in this Clause and, therefore, compensation for delayed work was payable.
(3.) It will be noticed/that this Clause does not make an absolute prohibition in regard to the payment of compensation for delayed work. /on the other hand, it provides for payment of compensation for delayed work, provided the work is delayed beyond 16 months from the date of the award of the contract, which is inclusive of the 4 months as stated in para 12 of the Order. Admittedly, in these cases, the period of the work was 21 months and 28 days and it is not disputed before us that this period is in excess of the limitation imposed in Clause 16.;