PANDIT CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. D D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals can be disposed of by this common judgment as facts are similar and same issues are involved. For the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts of RFA No. 123/2004.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the respondents/DDA being the amount alleged to be wrongfully withheld under a contract including from encashment of bank guarantee given as security. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit by holding that there were defective works and for such defective works, as per Clause 29 of the contract, respondents/DDA were entitled to withhold the amounts.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff was awarded work of construction of EWS and LIG houses in Bindapur, Dwarka and with respect to which agreements No. 51/EE/WD-1/DDA/1991-92 and 9/EE/WD-6/DDA/1995-96 were executed between the parties. It was pleaded that the work was completed on 5.6.1994 and completion certificate was issued by the defendants/respondents and the maintenance period under the agreements also expired on 5.12.1994. Appellant/plaintiff pleaded that it had been submitting running bills from time to time and from which running bills' amounts totalling to Rs 10,000/- + Rs 10,000/- + Rs 25,000/- + Rs 3,19,720/- were withheld. The respondents/defendants are also stated to have encashed the bank guarantee for Rs 1,50,000/-. In this way, a total sum of Rs 5,14,720/- was said to have been illegally withheld by the respondents/defendants. The appellant/plaintiff restricted its claim to Rs 5,00,000/-, and for recovery of which the subject suit came to be filed along with the claim of interest.