- (1.) THE petitioner the Union Construction Company (Private) Limited is a private limited company having its registered office in the city of Madras and is doing the business of a building contractor. It is registered as such with the Military Engineering Service (hereinafter called the M.E.S.), Eastern Command, Lucknow. During the years 1953 -56 the petitioner entered into four building contracts with the military department (hereinafter referred to as the employer or the department) through the Chief Engineer. M.E.S., Eastern Command, Lucknow (respondent No. 1). The four contracts have been described by the letters, A, B, C and D in this judgment. According to the petitioner, the total value of the work order was Rs. 26,62,646.77 nP. The details of the date of tender, date of acceptance, value of work, date of work order, date of completion and the period of completion are given below : JUDGEMENT_103_TLALL0_1959.htm
(2.) ADMITTEDLY the works mentioned above could not be completed within the stipulated time. The petitioners case with regard to the delay in the completion of the work under contract A is that though the tender was accepted as early as 29 -1 -1953, work order was not given to the petitioner till as late as 12 -5 -1953 in spite of repeated reminders by the petitioner for its being given earlier. The petitioner also alleges that certain alterations were made in the layout, design and specifications of certain buildings covered by this contract with the result that delay in the execution of the work was caused. It is also complained that in the agreement deed the specifications for veneers, shutters and cupboards were not given and it was agreed that the same will be furnished at a latter date. The petitioners case is that they were furnished with considerable delay. It is further alleged that the employer had undertaken to supply certain material to the petitioner which was not supplied within the stipulated time and the department had nominated a sub -contractor under cl. 11 (b) of the agreement deed for the sanitary work and the said sub -contractor did not complete the work assigned to him in time. It is averred that! 95 per cent of the work in connection with contract A was completed by 8 -12 -1955 and the responsibility for the non -completion of the remaining 5 per cent could not be fixed at the door of the petitioner but was due to the fault of the employer. It is complained that a sum of Rs. 1,25.000/ - has been withheld by the employer which is due to the petitioner for the work already done in connection with this contract and neither the employer is paying that amount to the petitioner nor allowing it to complete the work covered by this contract. With regard to contract B it is alleged that the delay was caused because the cement and the steel which the employer had to supply under the terms of the agreement were not supplied till 13 months after the tender was accepted. Even thereafter the employer made a change in the timber directing that deodar should be used instead of C.P. teak but a little after changed its mind and reverted back to C. P. teak from deodar. It is further complained that on a second occasion the employer did not supply the steel which it had undertaken to supply and the sub -contractor did not supply the sanitary fittings. According to the petitioner the delay in the completion of the work covered by contract B was caused by the default and lapses including those mentioned above committed by the employer. It is alleged that a sum of Rs. 90,000/ - is due to the petitioner from the employer and though bills had been submitted for the same payments have not been made.
(3.) IN connection with contract C the petitioners case is that it could not be completed up to 9 -1 -1956 as the site for the taxi track on which the construction was to be made was not handed over to the petitioner in time and further the employer committed delays and defaults in supplying material which it had undertaken to supply as also in respect of other matters. It is complained that there was some mistake about the level of the apron and the alignment of the apex in the plan and it was only by 15 -6 -1955 that the mistake was corrected by the department and that too only partially, no such correction having been made in respect of the level of the apron near the southern side of the A.W.D. hangar which was corrected partly on 31 -9 -1957 and finally on 22 -2 -1958. It is also alleged that in the work contracted included a culvert the approximate cost of which was Rs. 9,200/ -. The employer altered its design in the first week of March 1956 with the result that not only the work was delayed but the petitioner had to incur a cost of Rs. 16,269/ - instead of the original cost of Rs. 9,200/ -. It is averred that the employer added a new item called the Track Coat and the petitioner started to work on it soon after it was added but it was stopped from doing so by the employer in October 1955. It was after some time that the work was allowed to be restarted but it was again stopped on 28 -7 -1956 and it was only on 29 -11 -1956 that it was finally allowed to be constructed. ;