KARPARA PROJECT ENGINEERING Vs. BELLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff in so far as the dismissal of the Suit against the 3rd defendant/ 3rd respondent is concerned in C.S.No.623 of 1997 dated 17.07.2001. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is as follows:

(2.) THE appellant is a partnership firm doing business in the erection of boilers, power plants, etc. THE first defendant / first respondent was in requirement of a substitution for its boiler. THE third defendant entered into a contract with the first defendant for the supply, erection and commission of boiler units on a turnkey basis. THE appellant did the dismantling of the then existing boiler, apart from unloading, erection and commissioning of new boiler at the first defendant's Unit, on the basis of the contract given by the first defendant at the instance of the third defendant. THE appellant also executed other works such as fabrication of main boiler components and works, which are incidental to the main erection work. THE appellant was directed to postpone the work which commenced only in the month of December, 1992.

(3.) THE third defendant accepted the extra work done by the appellant, but indicated in the settlement plan that the payment is due only from 2002 man hours in and by the letter dated 15.11.1994. It also indicated that the rate per man hour should be Rs.25/- instead of Rs.50/- as claimed by the appellant. THErefore, the claim of the appellant was accepted in part by the third defendant. However, the said contention of the third defendant is without any basis and it is also against the prevailing rate. THE third defendant itself paid Rs.35/- per man hour to the appellant in the year 1998. THE third defendant could not supply certain components for the boiler. Accordingly, the appellant was asked to fabricate and erect them. Under those circumstances, a sum of Rs.9,86,632.50 is due to the appellant. THE amount due to the appellant from the defendants towards the extra dismantling work was Rs.1,98,900/-. THE third defendant in and by the letter dated 12.11.1994 has accepted the liability. However, the third defendant did not make the supply for the erection in time.