UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Vs. MASTER BUILDERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the "Code"), for restraining the defendant, by means of an ad interim injunction from obstructing the entry of the plamtiff in property No. 16, Amrita Shergill Marg (formerly known as Ratendon Road) New Delhl, and restraining the defendant from entering upon the same. Injunction in the mandatory form is also sought. This application has been filed in the suit asking for similar relief of injunction, and also for a decree of Rs 2,60,000-00 being damages (mesne profits) calculated at the rate of Rs. 1,30,000-00 per month. Future damages (mesne profits) are also claimed.

(2.) The plaintiff is the Federal Government of the United States of America having its diplomatic mission in New Delhi. There are two defendants. First defendant is stated to be a partnership firm engaged in the business of engineering and building contracts. Second defendant is the managing partner of the first defendant. At this stage itself, it may be noted that the first defendant earlier filed a suit. Suit No. 932 of 1986, against the Government of the United Slates of America and their contracting officer for recovery of over Rs. 1.18 crores for the work done on property bearing No. 16, Amrita Shergill Marg, and also No. 14, Amrita Shergil Marg. The two suits have been consolidated by an order dated November 26, 1990. Since there are two cross suits, it will be appropriate to use the names of the parties instead of describing them as plaintiff and defendant, that is, the United States of America ("USA" for short) and Master Builders ("MB" for short).

(3.) USA is the owner of leasehold rights in plots Nos. 14 and 16, Amrita Shergil Marg, New Delhi (henceforth to be described as Plot No. 14 or, even No. 14, and Plot No. 16, or even No. 16). It was to construct senior officer's residences on these plots and for that purpose invited tenders. The tender of MB was accepted, and two separate contracts for the construction of residences at No 14 and No. 16 were entered into. The two projects and the two contracts, though separate, were, in fact, treated as one by the conduct of the parties, and it is the admitted case that tnere was common correspondence covering construction on both these plots. The suit filed by USA concerns construction on plot No. 16. Cost of each project was Rs. 40,31,654.00, but MB has contended that due to changes made by the USA the contract price was increased to Rs. 76,25,699.05 for plot No. 14 and Rs. 76,81,406.84 for Plot no. 16.