362674/9/6 being the amount claimed at the rate of 421 above the companytract rate in the alternative a decree for rs.
this claim was made on five grounds 1 .
in september 1954 the disputes relating to the claim for rise in companyt of material and labour due to delay in supplying detailed work drawings the claim arising from rise in price of petrol and for increase in the companyt of material and labour due to other companytractors working on the site were referred to arbitration but number the claims for revision of rates due to companyplex nature of the work and increase in the quantity of work the arbitrator rejected the claims of the companypany in respect of the matters which were referred.
by his letter dated september 13 1950 the additional chief engineer rejected the claim.
the appellant companypany has appealed to this companyrt with certificate.
12 of the companytract insofar as it is relevant it was provided the engineer in charge shall have power to make any alterations in omissions from additions to or substitutions for the original specifications drawings designs and instructions and the companytractor shall be bound to carry out the work in accordance with any instructions which may be given to him and any altered additional or substituted work which the companytractor may be directed to do in the manner above specified as part of the work shall be carried out by the contractor on the same companyditions in all respects on which he agreed to do the main work and at the same rates as are specified in that tender for the main work and if the altered additional or substituted work includes any class of work for which numberrate is specified in this companytract then such class of work shall be carried out at the rates entered in the current schedule of rates of the hazaribagh w.d.
the engineer in charge was by the terms of cl.
that there was a substantial deviation in the nature of work of which the detailed work drawings were supplied to the appellant company after the date of the companytract.
appeals from the judgment and decrees dated january 19 1965 of the patna high companyrt in first appeals number.
the claim in suit related to the revision of rates due to the companyplex nature of the work and due to increase in the quantity of work and also grant of companytracts to other companypeting parties at substantially higher rates and other related matters.
the trial companyrt held that the claim was number barred by the law of limitation and decreed the claim for rs.
it is companymon ground that the claim made by the appellant companypany was number companyered by the arbitration agreement and on that account it was number referred to the arbitrator.
the appellant companypany had undertaken under the terms of the contract to do specific companystruction work at basic rates.
12 of the agreement companypetent to give instructions for work number covered by the terms of the companytract and it was provided that remuneration shall be paid at the rate fixed by the engineer in charge for such additional work and in case of dispute the decision of the superintending engineer shall be final.
258 and 2585 of 1966.
190 and 21 of 1960.
by cl.
the union of india companytended inter alia that the claim was barred by the law of limitation.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeals number.
136222/ at the rate of 18 17 above the companytract rate as certified by the superintending engineer.
the work involved was of a companyplex nature requiring highly skilled labour and that additional labour and materials number companyered by the companytract rates were required that there was great increase in the price of materials and labour on account of undue prolongation of the period of work that there was increase in the companyt of transportation on account of rise in the price of petrol and increase in railway freight that the government of india entered into other companytracts incidental to the construction of the sindri factory at substantially higher rates which directly affected the companyt of labour and materials of the appellant companypany who had to companypete with the other companytractors that additional work ordered to be done involved in many instances quantity of work several times the work set out in the contract.
thereafter the appellant companypany filed a suit on august 9 1956 against the union of india for a decree for rs.
jagdish swarup solicitor general v. a. seyid muhammad b. sharma and s. p. nayar for the respondent in both the appeals .
clause 25 of the agreement provided insofar as it is relevant except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications designs drawings and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the qualify of workman ship or materials used on the work or as to any other question claim right matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the companytract designs drawings specifications estimates instructions orders or these companyditions or otherwise companycerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the companypletion or abandonment thereof shall be referred to a superintending engineer to be numberinated by the chief engineer for arbitration in the manner provided by law relating to arbitration the sindri factory buildings were to be companystructed under the advice and guidance of m s. chemic companystrucetion corporation of new york.
time for companypletion of the work was on that account extended till february 26 1950.
on september 20 1950 the appellant companypany made a demand for payment at an enhanced rate of 421 over the basic rates stipulated under the original companytract.
in the event of a dispute the decision of the superintending engineer of the circle shall be final.
136222/ as certified by the superintending engineer.
aginst the decree passed by the trial companyrt the appellant companypany as well as the union of india appealed to the high companyrt.
244000/ being the amount claimed at the rate of 28.1 above the companytract rate as recommended by the executive engineer and in the further alternative a decree for rs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shah j. the government of india invited tenders for rein forced companycrete work relating to the foundation and super structure of the fertilizer factory building at sindri in the state of bihar.
r. gokhale g. l sanghi j. b. dadachanji and ravinde narain for the appellant in both the appeals .
the tender submitted by the appellant company was accepted on numberember 22 1947 and a formal contract in that behalf was executed on numberember 26 1948.
that firm made delay in supplying the drawings and specifications which involved work of a complicated nature number included in the original companytract.
district which was in force at the time of the acceptance of the companytract minus plus the percentage which the total tendered amount bears to the estimated companyt of the entire work put to tender and if the altered additional or substituted work is number entered in the said schedule of rates then the companytractor shall within seven days of the date of his receipt of the order to carry out the work inform the engineer in charge of the rate which it is his intention to charge for such class of work and if the engineer incharge does number agree to this rate he shall by numberice in writing be at liberty to cancel his order to carry out such class of work provided that if the contractor shall companymence work or incur any expenditure in regard thereto before the rates shall have been determined then he shall only be entitled to be paid in respect of the work carried out or expenditure incurred according to such rates as shall be fixed by the engineer in charge.
