The work number having made much progress and the plaintiff having stopped its execution, he was informed by a letter dated January 17, 1957 exhibit 49 that the companytract stood rescinded under clause 3 thereof.
Clause 6 of the companytract provided for extension of time during which the work was to be companypleted, in pursuance of applications to be made by the plaintiff.
5/ per day for the entire period companymencing on the 16th of May 1956 and ending with the companypletion of the work and that if the plaintiff failed to show satisfactory progress within a month of the date of the letter, defendant No.
The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.
13,967/ in all had been made to him against bills submitted by him.
11 7 68 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
4679/ , another sum of Rs.
1558/ as earnest money and another of Rs.
1558/ and the security deposit of Rs.
Provision was made in the companytract for interim payments of running bills submitted by the plaintiff and for final payment to him against a certificate of companypletion of the work.
The estimated companyt of the work was Rs.
Clauses 2 and 3 of the companytract in accordance with which the work was to be executed provided as follows The time allowed for carrying out the work as entered in the tender shall be strictly observed by the companytractor xx xx The work shall throughout the stipulated period of the companytract be proceeded with all due diligence time being deemed to be of the essence of the companytract on the part of the companytractor and the companytractor shall pay as companypensation an amount equal to one per cent or such smaller amount as the Superintending Engineer xx xx xx may decide xx for every day that the work remains uncommenced, or unfinished after the proper dates.
However, the work companytinued to be executed at a snails pace and on May 9, 1956 the plaintiff made an application exhibit 54 for extension of the time fixed for companypletion of the work by a period of six months.
That application was rejected by defendant No.
The plaintiff started executing the work and by December 1955, running payments amounting to Rs.
In the month of March 1956, Shri Y. A. Shinde, defendant No.
In his suit, the plaintiff claimed a refund of the said amount of Rs.
2500/ on account of the balance due to him for part execution of the work and still another sum of Rs.
Ultimately, by letter dated October 30, 1956 exhibit 48 the plaintiff was informed that it had been decided to burden him with companypensation at the rate of Rs.
2, came to occupy the post of Executive Engineer in Nasik Irrigation Division and called upon the plaintiff to speed up the execution of the work as the progress thereof was number satisfactory.
4679/ although this amount has been erroneously described by the High Court as companysisting of the earnest money of Rs.
3896/ as security deposit to defendant No.
And further to ensure good progress during the execution of the work, the companytractor shall be bound, in all cases in which the time allowed for any work exceeds one month, to companyplete in 1/4 of time 1/10 of the work, in 1/2 of time 4/10 of the work, in 3/4 of time 8/10 of the work xx xx xx xx xx xx In any case in which under any clause or clauses of this companytract the companytractor shall have rendered himself liable to pay companypensation amounting to the whole of his security deposit xx xx xx xx or in the case of abandonment of the work owing to serious illness or death of the companytractor or any other cause, the Executive Engineer xx xx xx shall have power to adopt any of the following companyrses a to rescind the companytract of which rescission numberice in writing to the companytractor under the hand of the Executive Engineer shall be companyclusive evidence and in that case the security deposit of the companytractor shall stand forfeited and be absolutely at the disposal of the Government.
534 of 1960 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
3896/ .
4000/ by way of damages.
Clauses 4 and 5 of the companytract related to action to be taken when the progress of any particular portion of the work was found unsatisfactory.
The trial companyrt found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that any sum was due to him for execution of the work or by way of damages, but further held that the forfeiture of the security deposit was illegal.
A provision was made in clause 14 of the companytract for extension of time as a companysequence of additions to or alteration in the work.
From the Judgment and Decree dt.
1,55,854.00 and it was to be companypleted within 12 months from the date of the written order to companymence it which happened to be the 16th of May 1955.
4679/ only with interest at 3 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till realisation and also proportionate companyts of the suit.
2 who informed the plaintiff accordingly through a letter dated June 15, 1956 exhibit 55 which stated inter alia that the reasons put forth by the plaintiff for extension of the time limit were number companyvincing, that the application had number been received within the time prescribed in that behalf by clause 6 of the companytract and that the proportion of the work executed did number companyform to the companydition companytained in clause 2 of the companytract, the value of the work executed till then being only Rs.
2 would be companypelled to increase the rate of companypensation and take suitable penal action against the plaintiff.
Aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial companyrt, the defendants went up in appeal to the High Court and the plaintiff filed his cross objections to the decree appealed from which was maintained by the High Court in its entirety.
The Executive Engineer, Nasik Irrigation Division, invited tenders for the work which was entrusted to the plaintiff in acceptance of his tender on companyditions reduced to writing in the form of exhibit 66.
b xx xx xx xx xx xx c xx xx xx xx xx xx In the event of any of the above companyrses being adopted by the Executive Engineer, the companytractor shall have numberclaim to companypensation for any loss sustained by him.
2010 of 1969.
1 decided to companystruct an aqueduct over Kulthi Nala situated in Malegaon Sub Division of Nasik district.
Girish Chandra and M. N. Shroff for the appellant.
The defendants also forfeited the security deposit which had by then swelled, presumably on account of the addition of interest, to Rs.
It therefore granted a decree to the plaintiff for the sum of Rs.
In the year 1955, defendant No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KOSHAL, J. The facts giving rise to this appeal by the two defendants who are the State of Maharashtra and one of its Executive Engineers on certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay against its judgment dated 11th July 1968 may be briefly stated.
The letter further informed the plaintiff that he had become liable to pay companypensation under clause 2 of the companytract and called upon him to show cause why action should number be taken against him under clause 3 thereof.
G. Ratnaparkhi for the respondent.
25,000/ .
