P. HANUMANTHIAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. H. Hanumantbiah & Company, hereinafter called 'the plaintiffs' executed on June 24, 1946 lour contracts Nos. 23, 24, 26 & 27 of 1946 in favour of C. R. I. E., Kirkee for demolition of existing barracks in the Kirkee cantonment and for contraction of a number of "Nissen prefabricated huts," The following table sets out the relevant details about the contracts, including the dates on which they were either completed or terminated :

(2.) The plaintiffs commenced an action in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona against the Union of India for a decree for Rs. 1,21,878/- being the principal and Rs. 22,622/-as interest: the break-up of the principal amount claimed by the plaintiff is as follows: .

(3.) The plaintiffs filed cross-objections to the decree appealed from and made a claim for the amounts disallowed. The High Court Rs. 12,644/15/- for item 2 and rejected the remaining claims The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court with certificate granted by the High Court. Counsel for the has not challenged the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim in respect of items 1 and 4 and there is no appeal before us by the Union in respect of item No 2. The claim in appeal is therefore restricted to two items- Items 3 and 5. Item 3 relates to a claim made by the plaintiffs for demolition of 40 huts constructed by them under Contract No. 24. The plaintiffs pleaded that dismantling of the huts by the C.R.I.E.. Kirkee was "altogether illegal", and even if the construction work was defective, the action of the C.K.I.E., was "indiscriminate and unjustified" since it was in direct contravention of the terms and conditions of the contract prescribing the treatment of defective work. The plaintiffs submitted that non-compliance with the mandatory provision of the conditions rendered the conduct of the C.R.I.E , illegal and actionable at law and the plaintiffs were therefore entitled to recover Rs. 35,000/- being "the expenses for erection and other incidental charges which were the direct consequence of the illegal acts of the C.R.I. E.". In respect of item (5) the plaintiffs claimed that three contracts Nos. 24, 26 & 27 were carried out by them according to their terms, that there was "continuous inspection" at all material times during the progress of the contract but no objection was ever raised about the details of the work and finally at the time of settlement of the bills an objection was raised the in respect of some of the huts "wooden ends" instead of "brick ends,' were built, and large amounts were unlawfully deducted. The plaintiffs averred that they had complied with every requirement of the contracts and the performance answered in all respects the "exact work required to be done under the contracts", and the basis of deduction according to the plaintiffs was not justified by the language of the instruments. According to the plaintiffs the term 'ends' had a "Specific significance" in the erection of a Nissen hut which represented a component structural unit, with its components clearly described in the brochure referred to in the contract. It was submitted that the contracts read with the brochure, bill of quantities at Schedule B and Schedule C and particular specifications and drawings did not require "brickends" to be built in the erection of "Nissen huts, and that it was expressly agreed that "wooden ends" supplied by the C.R.I.E. were to be used by the plaintiffs and they accordingly constructed the huts with wooden ends, and that the lumpsum quotation for the contracts was "principally guided and determined by the requirements of work need in regard to the ends, which formed the crucial part and core of the contract, and as such the deductions therefore were unjustified."