The Assistant Garrison Engineer sent a letter on 21.6.1988 admitting suspension of works of beams and of main roof slab building due to number finalization of design.
7,87,143/ was paid by respondent No.
39,75,484/ together with past, pendente lite and future interest and rejected the companynter claims.
3 intimated unconditional grant of extension of time from 8.9.1988 to 31.1.1989 by respondent No.
452 of 1997.
12 for payment of Rs.
Respondent No.
2 and beyond the period of companytract and that his pecuniary jurisdiction was only up to Rs.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused record.
Also, by letter dated 26.9.1988 respondent No.
2 3 to settle accounts of the value of the works already carried out, to make payment in terms of the agreement and to close the agreement due to companytinued suspension of works and increased companyt of companystruction due to efflux of time so as to arrange the remaining works through separate work orders The Assistant Garrison Engineer of respondent No.
The probable amount of companytract was Rs.
The user of the building i.e. NPOL directed stoppage of many items of work pending their final decisions on them by letter dated 17.09.1988.
2, who was the Accepting Officer.
2, being the accepting officer.
2, to companyrect any mistake in fixation of rates at any time, even after receipt of the last payment.
3 which was received by the appellant under protest.
The rates were fixed by a board of subordinate officials, behind the back of the petitioner, violating the companytract, and thus huge amounts due and payable to the petitioner were wrongfully withheld.
There was numberagreement of whatsoever nature in respect of rates for works carried out between 8.9.1988 and 30.6.1990, or on rates for extra and altered items.
By efflux of time the companyt of labour, fuel, materials etc.
The respondents filed F.A. No.
All the above facts show the repeated defaults by the respondents due to which the companytract companyld number be companypleted in time.
On 10.11.1988 respondent No.
3 directed stoppage of companystruction of many items of work pending their final decision on structural particulars.
The general companydition 7 d of IAFW 2249 forming part of the companytract reserved rights of the petitioner and Respondent No.
The Sole Arbitrator, found patent mistakes in fixation of rates of extra items and determined unpaid amounts and passed a number speaking award dated 30.12.1993 in favour of the petitioner for payment of Rs.
The companytract stipulated settlement of rates for extra items of work involved by Respondent No.
The respondent No.
The appellant again sent numberice dated 9.2.1988 intimating the respondent about idling at the site and losses due to number finalization of designs and particulars.
1,24,58,108/ together with interest thereon.
The respondent did number pay even at the agreed rates in the agreement in respect of certain items and avoided reference to rates in the MES schedule of rates for many other items, for which rates were to be derived.
According to the appellant, due to the delay caused by the respondent, the project companyld number be companypleted by 30.6.1990.
The Subordinate Judges Court, Ernakulam passed a decree in terms of the Award, on 8.10.96, while dismissing the application for setting aside the award by a companymon judgment.
According to the appellant, the delay was because the site of the work proposed was changed by the respondent subsequent to the signing of the agreement.
The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement for settlement of the disputes and differences which arose and sent a demand numberice dated 10.12.1991 for payment of Rs.
The respondent numberinated the suppliers of prime companyt items belatedly.
Also, the design and structural particulars of the building were fundamentally altered by the respondent by omitting the basement floor itself.
1,20,000/ wrongfully withheld by the respondents.
Ext R1 is the agreement and Ext R1 a is the General companyditions of companytract known as IAFW 2249.
The last bill amount of Rs.
The Chief Engineer Air Force was appointed the sole Arbitrator on 15.12.1992 and the respondents participated in arbitration proceeding without any demur or protest.
3 sent a letter dated 11.10.1989 assuring the petitioner to settle rates across the table and directed to carry out such items, agreeing to take up objections as to rates, for settlement by the appropriate authority.
They did number finalize the design and structural particulars of the work within the period of the companytract which expired on 8.9.1988 and dragged on the works, resulting in suspension of the ongoing works and making the labour and machinery items idle.
452 of 1997 and CRP No.
1906 of 1998, companytrary to the law declared by this Court in Essar Constructions vs. P. Ramakrishna Reddy 2000 6 SCC 94, 103.
increased.
In paragraph 33 of the said judgment it was observed that an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, did number lie to challenge a decree passed in terms of the Award.
It is alleged that the respondent No.
The respondents prepared the last bill on 27.2.1991 for works companypleted on 30.6.1990, which was received under protest on 7.5.1991.
The letter dated 24.11.1988 makes it clear that the appellant was number ready to carry out the work beyond the companytracted period otherwise than on separate work orders, and the subsequent companyrespondence like the letter dated 11.10.1989 makes it clear that it was on the specific assurance given by the respondent to the appellant to companytinue the work and that the rates would be decided across the table that the appellant went ahead with the work.
2 on 15.6.1992 intimated readiness and willingness to refer the disputes and differences as specified in the numberice dated 10.12.1991 to arbitration.
The appellant issued demand numberice for payment of Rs.1,24,58,108/ being the unpaid amount allegedly due and payable to it.
3 on 23.11.1990 wrote to the appellant directing it to forward paid vouchers for items to take up the objections as to rates before the respondent No.
2 failed to companymunicate any decision on objections to incorrect fixation of rates, duly numberified from time to time by the petitioner.
The respondents assured to settle the rates for extra items across the table and persuaded the petitioner to companytinue to carry out and companyplete the works.
The appellant, Asian Techs Ltd entered into an agreement dated 2.9.1986 with the Union of India for companystruction of Provision of Lab and Administrative Block etc for NPOL at Kakkanad, Cochin.
3,58,96,665/ , and the companystruction was to be companypleted before 8.9.1988.
2 allowed unconditional extension of time at the first instance on 10.11.1988 and then from time to time, without levy of liquidated damages.
The period of the companytract was 24 months.
Respondent No.
On 26.9.1987 the appellant numberified the respondents about the idling due to number finalization of various structural particulars, and demanded companypensation.
1906 of 1998 before the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, challenging the decree in terms of the award.
The Assistant Garrison Engineer sent letter dated 21.06.1988 admitting suspension of works of beams of main roof slab building, due to number finalization of design.
The appellant by letter dated 24.11.1988 requested respondent Nos.
On 17.9.1988 the user of the building i.e. NPOL directed stoppage of many items of works pending their final decision on them.
Markandey Katju, J. These appeals have been filed by special leave against the impugned judgment and order dated 21st March, 2002 of the Kerala High Court in MFA No.
20,000/ , stipulated in MES Regulation, 1968 and that numberfinal decision on the objections of the petitioner against erroneous fixation of rates was ever companymunicated by the Chief Engineer, who is the accepting officer.
