SUPREME TELECOMMUNICATION LTD Vs. RPG TRANSMISSION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s RPG Transmission Limited, the respondent in the present appeal filed a suit against M/s Supreme Telecommunication Limited averring that the appellant had placed a purchase order dated 24.8.2000 which was subsequently amended by letter dated 31.10.01 for supply of 100 M Microwave Tower under which the respondent was required to do the work of foundation as well as erection. The appellant was doing work for its client M/s Samsung SDS Co.Ltd. The last purchase order was to bind the parties and the value of the purchase order was Rs. 72,25,090/- which included supply of 100 M Microwave Tower for a consideration of Rs. 35,41,124.80/-, work of foundation for a consideration of Rs.25,60,715/- and work of erection was to costs at Rs.11,23,250/-. A letter of credit was opened by the appellant on 24.4.02 which was subsequently amended on 31.8.02 and it was agreed that on completion of each portion of work a completion certificate would be issued by the respondent to the appellant. The respondent completed the entire work and the same was accepted by the appellant. Payment of Rs.25,60565/- was made on 4.9.02 against the work of the foundation. No payment was made on account of erection. Finally, the respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 12,49,861/- from the appellant. According to the respondent, the entire work had been completed and the liability of the appellant to pay this amount was said to be unequivocal. The respondent asked the appellant to issue completion certificates as well as to make the payment. The entire work was completed on 5.12.02 whereafter the appellant started raising false, baseless and mischievous claims and allegations against the respondent. In these circumstances, the respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 12,49,861/- with interest @18% p.a.

(2.) The suit was contested by the appellant and it was stated that the entire work was to be completed within a period of 26 weeks, however, they failed to complete the work for almost 49 weeks from the date of the purchase order and it was result of a negligence and breach committed by the respondent. The amount claimed was denied. It was not disputed that there was a meeting between the parties on 5.10.02. On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

(3.) The Trial Court while answering the issues in favour of the respondent and passing a decree for a sum of Rs.12,49,861/- with interest @ 9% p.a recorded the following findings: