COMMANDER BANGALORE AREA AND Vs. ARMUGAM NAGARTHNAM AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three appeals the respondents are Contractors who entered into contracts with the Military Department for the construction of what are known as "Hutted Ancillaries" on a lump sum basis. Letters dated 27-4-43 were addressed to them enclosing the tender documents and they were instructed to submit their tenders within 11 A. M. on 1-8-43. IN para. 2(b) of the letter marked Ext. A the attention of the contractors was drawn to the fact that "the Plinth areas inserted in Col. 15 or Schedule B, are rounded off to the nearest foot" and that it should be understood that the amounts mentioned in Col. 19 against each item (except in the case of provincial items) are fixed amounts and shall not be varied and that the percentage tendered will be deemed to be above or below these amounts. While there is hardly any doubt that the contracts were therefore on a lump sum basis it will be noticed that in Schedule D in which the rates for pricing variations and additions are mentioned, it was stated that it was a list of items rates of the same standard of values as the Plinth area rates, entered in 'Schedule B' and shall be used for pricing variations and additions.

(2.) THE contention of the contractors is that the above statement in Schedule D led them to think that the lump sums mentioned in Ext. B had been worked out on that basis and that they are therefore entitled to claim money for the work done on that basis and not on the basis ,of their lump sum tender. It was also contended that there was an arithmetical error of Rs. 10,000/- in Schedule B and that they were entitled to get this corrected. THE contention of the Government was that if there were any mistakes in Schedule B they were immaterial as the contract was clearly on lump sum basis. Moreover, the contractors had signed the final bills as well as no-claim certificates and they cannot reopen the question over again.

(3.) AFTER stating the cases of the parties at some length, the learned Judge of the lower court has held: