TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. ARIES AND ARIES CIVIL ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS A UNIT OF M/S SUDARSAN TRADING CO MADRAS 14

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the defendant against the judgment of the learned single Judge in C. S. No. 130 of 1987, decreeing in part the claims made by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE admitted facts are as follows: - THE defendant/appellant called for tenders for the construction of eight blocks of 8f (LIG) type quarters and nine blocks of 16g (EWS) type quarters at Ennore THErmal Power Station. THE cost of one block of 8f type was Rs. 2,90,264. 30 and the total cost of eight blocks was calculated as rs. 23,22,114. 40 and the cost of nine blocks of 16g quarters was calculated as rs. 40,57,765. 65 at the rate of Rs. 4,50,862. 85 per block. Total estimated value of the contract was thus Rs. 63,79,880. 05. THE plaintiff submitted its tender quoting Rs. 21,66,880/- for'f'type quarters and Rs. 38,37,204/- for 16g type quarters and with a rebate of 3%, if both the works were given. Subsequently, in reply to the letter dated 7. 5. 1976, issued by the Superintending Engineer, the plaintiff gave reply letter dated 15. 5. 1976 extending the validity of the tender period upto 11. 7. 1976. By letter No. SCFC/e1/a5/ennore Quarters dated 7. 7. 1976, the Chief Engineer accepted the offer for the entire construction. THE acceptance order provide for payment of security deposit of Rs. 1,40,600/-, being the value of 2" % of the total contract value less Earnest Money deposit of Rs. 5,000/- already paid by the plaintiff. THE period of construction was 12 months from the date of handing over the site to the plaintiff. THEre was a stipulation that additional work that may become necessary shall be paid separately.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: - "1. Whether the plaintiff has done any extra work beyond the terms and conditions of the contract? 2. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to the enhanced rate in view of escalation of prices of materials and labour as claimed in para 13 of the plaint? 3. Whether the plaintiff had accepted unconditionally the offer of the defendant with all the terms and conditions? 4. Was the delay in completing the work due to the slow progress made by the plaintiff? 5. Whether the defendant is entitled to reduce the value of the contract based on the measurement and terms and conditions of the offer? 6. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation on the arbitrary reduction of contract value? 7. Whether the defendant has unilaterally changed the design and sizes of structural materials, RCC works without consulting the plaintiff thereby causing loss to the plaintiff? 8. Has the defendant paid amounts to the plaintiff for the work done as per the terms and conditions of the contract? 9. Whether the claim for 5% adhoc increase is not justified? 10. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to for the value of 3% rebate deducted by the defendant? 11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any amount for the alleged loss of profit? 12. Whether the suit claim is maintainable? 13. Is the suit barred by limitation? 14. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled?