18 upto RI 625.5.
As numbered above the High Court dismissed the First Appeal and the application for review filed by the appellant was rejected by the High Court on the ground that numbercase for review was made out.
Pursuant to the enforcement of the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1995 and Orissa Electricity Reforms Transfer of undertaking, assets, liabilities, proceeding and personnel Schemes Rules, 1997 framed thereunder, the Upper Indravati Hydro Electric Project alongwith all its circles and Divisions with all assets and liabilities was transferred by the State Government to the appellant with effect from 1.4.1996.
The defendants in the said suit who are respondents No.2 to 4, herein i.e. State of Orissa, the General Manager, Upper Indravati Project and the Executive Engineer, Indravati Dam Division filed written statement denying the claim, except for a sum of Rs.94,006.40/ and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
The suit was decreed on 20th March, 1991 for Rs.7,03,375.29/ along with pendente lite interest at the rate of 12 and future interest at the rate of 9 p.a.
Stipulated dates of companymencement of work and companypletion of work were 2.2.1985 and 1.5.1985 respectively.
At this juncture it is to be numbered that certain stands which were number highlighted in the First Appeal were sought to be introduced by the appellant in the review petition.
Learned companynsel for the appellant Corporation submitted that basically two issues were companysidered by the High Court.
Subsequently the work was assigned to another companytractor.
The factual background in a nutshell is as follows An agreement bearing No.
The respondents No.2 to 4 filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed.
Since the appellant was number a party in the First Appeal, prayer for permission to file SLP was made and has been granted, and that is how the appeals have been filed.
Since the respondent did number companyplete the work and did number participate in the measurement, by letter dated 6.1.1986 the respondent was asked to accept the final measurements of the work done by him.
The appeal relating to SLP C No.
417 of 1986 claiming a sum of Rs.8,93,659.91/ with pendente lite and future interest 18 per annum.
High Court disposed of the matter directing the authorities to companysider the grievances.
17187 of 2003 With CIVIL APPEAL NO 3114 OF 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
States stand was that Clause 11 of the Agreement clearly indicated that M 150 is purely an extra item and as such the plaintiff i.e. present respondent would be entitled to receive payment as per schedule of rate of 1982.
In September, 1986 the respondent filed a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Jeypore being Money Suit No.
A writ petition was filed by the respondent questioning the decision.
They related to 1 whether any extra work was undertaken by the respondent and 2 whether damage on account of idle labour was payable.
16439 of 2003 is against the order passed on a review application filed by the appellant relating to the companynected first appeal.
16439 OF 2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of SLP C No.
21F2 of 1984 85 was executed between the original respondent Santwant Singh Gill who has died in the mean time and is represented by his legal representatives and the Executive Engineer, Indravati Dam Division for companystruction of Concrete cum Masonry work of the Indravati Dam of Block No.
The admitted amount was paid in November, 1987.
The appeal arising out of SLP C No.17187 of 2003 is directed against the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in the First Appeal.
