ASIAN TECHS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 452 of 1997.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

(3.) The appellant, Asian Techs Ltd. entered into an agreement dated 2-9-1986 with the Union of India for construction of Provision of Lab and Administrative Block etc. for NPOL at Kakkanad, Cochin. The probable amount of contract was Rs. 3,58,96,665/-, and the construction was to be completed before 8-9-1988. The period of the contract was 24 months. Ext. R1 is the agreement and Ext. R1(a) is the General conditions of contract known as IAFW - 2249. According to the appellant, due to the delay caused by the respondent, the project could not be completed by 30-6-1990. 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. Also, the design and structural particulars of the building were fundamentally altered by the respondent by omitting the basement floor itself. The respondent nominated the Suppl liers of prime cost items belatedly. They did not finalize the design and structural particulars of the work within the period of the contract 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. By efflux of time the cost of labour, fuel, materials etc. increased. The respondents assured to settle the rates for extra items across the table and persuaded the petitioner to continue to carry out and complete the works. The respondent No. 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. There was no agreement 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. The respondent did not 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. The contract stipulated settlement of rates for extra items of work involved by Respondent No. 2, being the accepting officer.