90,165/ Claim 3 Unpaid amounts for extra lead for water works, amounting to Rs.
Per cubic meter.
After the appellants tender was approved and work order dated 21 st December, 1978 was issued by the State in favour of the appellant, the parties executed an agreement at Nagpur.
Having perused the pleading in the written statement and the evidence produced by the respondents defendants , the High Court, after analysing the same, companycluded that there was obvious typographical error in the CSR rates pertaining to financial year 1981 82, which was later on companyrected, and gave benefit of that position to the respondents and came to hold that the appellant was number entitled to the claim amount of Rs.1,76,199/ .
1,76,199.28/ Claim 2 Unpaid amounts for difference in rates relating to excavation work, amounting to Rs.
After companypletion of the companytract work on 16 th June, 1982, final bill was paid to the appellant on 22nd October, 1982, which the appellant disputed on the ground that it had performed extra work over and above the tendered work, for which payment was number included.
Feeling aggrieved by the alleged shortfall in payment and unable to settle the dispute with the respondents, the appellant filed a suit against the respondents before the Court of 6th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division , Nagpur being Special Civil Suit No.279 of 1985, inter alia seeking a decree for amounts due to it under the following heads of claim Claim 1 Unpaid amounts arising out of difference in government prescribed rates for work of excess stone revetment pitching, amounting to Rs.
4,98,769.87 to the plaintiff.
Further, the appellant was duly informed by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Nagpur, that its claim relating to extra lead for water was number acceptable.
The plaintiff is bound by the said decision.
The pitching rates in the CSR of 1981 82 are mentioned in the square metres and number in cubic metres.
27.60 Ps.
The respondents preferred an appeal against the aforesaid decree passed by the Trial Court before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, being First Appeal No.312 of 1992.
It is held that the respondent plaintiff would number be entitled to claim an amount of Rs.
97.60 Ps.
Engineer.
The respondents, in reply, have companytended that the High Courts decision was justified and based on the evidence brought on record.
Engineer that whom I companyverted the rates from square metres to cubic meters for pitching work for the year 1981 82.
119 is issued by Executive Engineer, Canal Design Division in the Capacity of Secretary.
The High Court went on to hold that the Trial Court also erroneously granted the claim relating to extra lead for water i.e. Claim 3 .
97.60 per cubic meter as claimed by the plaintiff had never reached at any point of time and the plaintiff was number entitled to claim at that rate only on the basis of the mistake in the C.S.R. for the year 1981 82.
However, the Superintending Engineer, Nagpur Irrigation Circle Nagpur, vide letter No.
I found that the rates of was too high and abnormal and therefore what should be done.
Thus, it is apparent that S.R. rate was Rs.
For the year 1980 81, for the year 1982 83, it was 46.65 Ps.
Accordingly, this office has taken the rate of pitching per cubic meter for 80 81 which was Rs.
The High Court, however, did number disturb the interest companyponent as ordered by the Trial Court.
47 I reported to the Supdt.
1,76,199/towards pitching an amount of Rs.
9900/ In addition, the appellant also claimed interest on the claim amount, of Rs.1,42,505.60, calculated at 15 p.a.
which was due and payable for the year 1981 82 according to the rectification.
Per Cubic Meter, for the year 1980 81, it was Rs.
III Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an amount of Rs.80,000/for additional lead for water?
II Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an amount of Rs.90,165/for the excavation of the soft rock of the strata?
For, it was impermissible to companyrect the earlier numberified rates of CSR with retrospective effect.
As regards Claim 1, the rectification issued by the respondents with respect to the Government CSR rates for pitching work was misleading and was produced as an afterthought, being issued much after the end of the relevant financial year.
47 in my opinion is number a recommendation to Supdt.
In such a case the rate was to be fixed for pitching work in the year 1981 82 by the superintending Engineer.
Hence there is numbersubstance in the claim of the plaintiff as he has been paid fully as per companytract companyditions.
35.70 per cubic meter for the extra work of pitching carried out by the plaintiff during the year 1981 82 and this is over and above the rate of Rs.
9.95 for square metre against K.M. 24.25 per square metre against wrongly mentioned rates on CSR of 1981 82.
As per clause 38 of the agreement as the rate of pitching in CSR 1981 82 were number in cubic metres that rate was number applicable to be paid to the companytractor.
emphasis supplied The evidence adduced by the respondents, including the deposition of DW1, was numberhing but elaboration of the said pleading.
That was illegal.
28.55 Ps.
IV Whether the grant of companypensation Rs.9,900/towards lead for sand was justified?
80,000/ and Claim 4 Unpaid amounts for extra lead for sand, amounting to Rs.
Notwithstanding the above, the respondents had nevertheless paid the appellant for extra work done.
The plaintiff had been paid at the rate of Rs.
With interest, the aggregate claim of the appellant was Rs.
Plaintiff never raised any dispute about the rates.
The respondents have reiterated the findings and companyclusion reached by the High Court while rejecting Claims 1 and 3 of the appellant.
For, the agreement executed by the parties for the companytract work clearly mentioned that the work done by the appellant under this head of claim would include watering and mechanized companypaction of earth work and numberextra payment towards lead for water would be payable.
4,98, 769.86/ .
By the same letter Supdt.
No objection was taken for exhibiting the aforementioned official documents.
from 22nd October, 1982 till the date of filing the suit.
In the instant case, the appellants State of Maharashtra had number disputed that the total excavated quantity by the plaintiff companytractor was 2575.26 meter cube which was over and above the actual quantity which was required for the stone revetment and, hence, the plaintiff companytractor was entitled to seek payment in this regard at the C.S.R. rate.
3 The decreetal amount to carry future interest 15 per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its actual realization.
The rectification itself is inadmissible in evidence, number having been pleaded by the respondents in their written statement before the Trial Court.
Over the companyrse of hearing, the learned Single Judge framed the following points for companysideration Whether the trial Court was justified in granting the claim of Rs.1,76,199/towards pitching?
rate in cubic metres.
per cubic meter.
97.30 is number companyrect as the rate of pitching in CSR 81 82 was given as Rs.
Nagpur to the Supdt.
Additionally, the respondents have faintly denied the claims made by the appellant for variation in excavation of rock i.e. Claim No.2 and in extra lead of sand i.e. Claim 4, stating that the respondents never agreed to pay for any variation.
Sanctioned CSR for 1981 82.
The Supdt.
The letter received by the department is returned to the witness and the Xerox companyy is placed at Exh.
The Court numbered that despite this, the appellant was claiming payment under this head of claim at an exorbitant and abnormal rate, which was untenable.
2 Defendants do pay Rs.
Ultimately, the High Court by its judgment and decree dated 1st September, 2009 partly allowed the respondents appeal, modifying the decision of the Trial Court and reducing the decreetal amount as under For the reasons aforesaid, the first appeal is partly allowed.
per cubic meters.
and numberrate for per cubic meter is given in this CSR.
What order?
It was also agreed that in case the rate of any particular item is act mentioned in the CSR then the rate is to be fixed mutually by department and companytractor to be derived from CSR.
The plaintiff is bound by the terms of the agreement and in view the provisions made in the agreement reference as to the dispute raised by the plaintiff was already made to the Superintending Engineer and it was finally settled by the said authorities.
These rates show that for the year 1982 83, the C.S.R. rate for pitching was Rs.
But only an abnormality was pointed out to the Supdt.
The rate was shown as Rs.
The letter date 30.5.1983 is placed at Exh.
CSR Committee.
35.70 per M3 and the plaintiff was paid at this rate.
Per Meter cube.
Engineer, NIPC in the capacity of president of the CSR companymittee.
The Zerox companyy of the Govt.
27.60 Ps.
119 clearly show that there was a rectification of the mistake and it was held that for the years 1981 82, the rate was Rs.
Claim 2 and Claim 4, struck off Claim 1 and Claim 3, having held that the said claims were granted by the Trial Court without companysidering the evidence on record.
Per square meter and this error on the part of the Government of wrongly quoting the rate in S.R. of the year 1981 82 has given rise to the dispute and had also given rise to the claim made by the plaintiff for the pitching work Rs.80.33 Ps.
The High Court, while partly allowing the appellants claims, viz.
In the companytext of pleading in the written statement, DW1 in his examination in chief had stated thus In agreement so executed by plaintiff he had quoted the rate of pitching work 10 above the Govt.
30.5.1983.
Such direction companyld number be issued with retrospective effect.
The letter is dt.
Each of the above claims was specifically challenged by the respondents in their written statement.
The judgment and decree passed by the 6 th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division , Nagpur on 29.10.1991 is hereby modified.
Engineer.
The letter number shown to me is the same.
The High Court analysed the pleading as well as the oral and documentary evidences produced by the defendant to companye to the said companyclusion.
28.55 Ps.
The State had produced the C.S.R. rates for the year 1982 83 also.
46.65 Ps.
For the year 1979 80, Rs.
The document at Exh.
46.65 ps.
It is number in dispute that the plaintiff has been paid Rs.
119, it was brought to the numberice of the authorities that the C.S.R. rates for pitching for the year 1981 82 were wrongly quoted and the rate per cubic meter was Rs.
The finding on the first issue is recorded without companysidering the material evidence on record and without companysidering that there was a genuine mistake in the C.S.R. of the year 1981 82 so far as the item of pitching was companycerned.
But the pitching rates in earlier CSR of 1979 89 and 1980 81 were in the cubic metres.
27.60 per cubic meter and adding 30 above that the rate worked out Rs.
It is number in dispute that the companytract existed for the period from 1979 to 1982.
47 intimated such abnormality to the Govt.
Engineer that it was an anomaly and therefore the labour rate should be companyrected.
Engineer also fixed the rates in cubic metres.
The cubic metre is Rs.
emphasis supplied Notably, this evidence was allowed to be let in by the appellant without any demur.
80,000/for additional lead of water.
By Exh.
24.25 per M2 by the Govt.
12 A which was 300 M3 has been increased to 3455.50 M3 as material available for pitching was less than tender quantity.
by letter dated 23.6.82 intimated all Supdt.
35.70 Ps.
33.50 Ps.
4 Decree be drawn accordingly.
1,76,199/towards pitching.
Engineer.
The material facts to deny the claim of the appellant qua this head under companysideration was duly pleaded.
letter received by the Department is placed on record along with list Exh.
24.25 Ps.
The State had produced the necessary documents on record to show that this error was rectified by the Government.
The allegations that clause No.
per cubic meter and for the year 1982 83, it was Rs.
Engineer in pursuance of my letter Exh.
For the year 1979 80, the C.S.R. rate for pitching was Rs.
Supdt.
33.50 Ps.
and due to a mistake in mentioning the C.S.R. rate in square meters in the year 1981 82, the plaintiff was claiming at an exorbitant and abnormal rate Rs.
After companysidering the rival companytentions and the evidence on record, the Trial Court passed a decree in favour of the appellant on 29th October, 1991, the operative part of which is reproduced hereinbelow ORDER 1 Suit is decreed with companyts.
In case the actual work carried out by the companytractor exceeds by 25 above the estimate then the companytractor is entitled to charge the rate as per CSR prevailing.
The Xerox companyy tallies with the letter received by us.
Hence, such claim was rejected.
33.50 Ps.
For the third year i.e., 1981 82, the year for which the dispute arose, the rate was wrongly shown in square meters in stead of showing it in cubic meters.
ARORA Date 2017.08.23 162304 IST Reason The appellant, a partnership firm engaged in civil companystruction works, had submitted a tender for work pertaining to companystruction of one Nishanghat Minor Irrigation Tank in pursuance of a numberice issued by respondent No.1 State of Maharashtra.
M. KHANWILKAR, J. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 1st September, 2009, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in First Appeal No.312 of 1992 whereby the High Court has partly modified the decree passed by the Trial Court and negatived Claim Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR Nos.1 and 3 set up by the appellant.
