From the Judgment and Decree dated 16 7 68 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No.
It was also held by the Division Bench that there was numbernew agreement in November 1947.
The companypletion of the work was admitted.
of India Act, 1935, were number companyplied with.
As agreed the amount of the final bill, less Rs.
Some of the rates, therefore, required revision.
The defendant, Union of India, filed a written statement on 1st February, 1956, five years after the filing of the suit.
As we said earlier, the suit was filed on 24th January, 1951.
199 A of 1964.
In respect of fourteen items of work the old rates were number altered.
As numberstone was available at the site, stone had to be obtained by blasting a rock in a hillock.
In respect of ten items of work only the rates were altered.
50,000/ .
The agreement provided for the work to be done with stone at site.
The plaintiff further stated in the plaint that after the companypletion of the work there was a companyference in November, 1947 at Calcutta and an agreement was arrived at between the parties regarding the rates at which the plaintiff was to be paid for the work executed by him.
50,000/ should be paid two weeks thereafter.
The plaintiff therefore, filed suit No.
50,000/ , should be paid forthwith and the balance of Rs.
The rates stipulated in the agreement were on the basis that stone was available at site and number on the basis that stone had to be obtained by blasting rock.
The plaintiff initially objected to the rates but withdrew his objections at the companyference.
Shri Bhatt, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit was based on the agreement of November, 1947 and that this agreement was void as the provisions of Section 175 3 of the Govt.
The agreement said to have been arrived at the companyference was also denied.
50,000/ with interest from the date of judgment.
50,000/ was number paid despite repeated demands by the plaintiff.
It was agreed that the total amount of the final bill prepared in accordance with the agreed rates, less a sum of Rs.
50,000/ , was paid but number the sum of Rs.
The rates agreed between the parties at the companyference were the very rates which had been previously fixed by a Government Engineer named Ramani Roy and suggested to the plaintiff by the Superintending Engineer for his acceptance.
A VII/96.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
531 of 1951 on the original side of the High Court of Calcutta on 24th January, 1951 to recover the sum of Rs.
All that was done in November 1947 was to settle the rates for additional or substituted work as provided in clauses 12 and 12 A of the original agreement.
In the plaint, as filed originally, the plaintiff stated that it was agreed that the work should be done by the plaintiff on the terms and companyditions 1004 mentioned in certain letters that passed between the parties.
The Union of India has preferred this appeal pursuant to a certificate granted under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution of India as it stood prior to the 30th amendment .
B. Bhatt, E. C. Agarwala and Girish Chandra for the Appellant.
The respondent companypleted the work in 1945.
Out of these ten items, rates were substantially increased for nine items but slightly decreased for one item.
On the side of the Government the Superintending Engineer, the Executive Engineer and the Deputy Accountant General were present.
The appeal was allowed and a decree was granted for Rs.
The companytract for the execution of the work was admitted.
There was a companyference between the parties in November, 1947.
The sum of Rs.
No reference to the written agreement was initially made in the plaint but by a later amendment reference was also made to the agreent No.
B. Datar and Ashok Grover for the Respondent.
2053 of 1969.
50,000/ .
The respondent plaintiff undertook the companystruction of a hard Runway, Taxi tracks and dispersal roads at Dalbhumghar Aerodrome.
There was a formal written agreement between the parties Agreement No A VII/96 of 1944 45 .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Not companytent with raising a false plea, the appellant, Union of India has preferred this appeal on a technical ground.
50,000/ together with interest.
The companyference alleged by the plaintiff to have been held in November 1947 was denied.
