TRIVENI STRUCTURALS LTD Vs. NEWAGE ENTERPRISES ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from an order of Civil Judge, Allahabad issuing an ad-interim injunction before issuing notice to the appellant, asking the appellant and respondent to maintain status quo on the spot and not to proceed with further commencment of the work on spot till 24-8-1992. From the annexures to the application for staying the order of the trial Court it transpires that at the first instance the above order was extended up to 26-8-1992 and thereafter on 26-8-1992 it has been extended to 4-11-1992.

(2.) Admittedly the appellant had taken a contract from the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC in brief hereinafter) for raising a micro-wave tower at Noida district Ghaziabad. The appellant had invited tender for foundation work and the respondents tender was accepted. From the papers annexed to the affidavit, counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit it transpires that a series of letters were exchanged between the parties. Annexure No. 4 of counter-affidavit indicatesthat on 13-2-1992 the appellant indicated their acceptance of the tender of the respondent. The respondent informed through a letter dated 27/04/1992 (C.A. 5) that they were ready to start the work and asked the appellant to handover the lay out of the site. On 5-5-1992 the appellant informed the respondent that their engineer will be available on site for laying down the site. The respondent were also asked to mobilise their man-power, tools etc. at the spot. On 17-5-1991 another letter was written to the respondent by the appellant that the work had not started despite the request of the engineer of the appellant to start the foundation work on 12-5-1992. On 18-5-1992 the appellant had issued a time schedule for the work. According to this time schedule mobilisation of the site was to be completed by first week of the May. On 25-5-1992 the appellant had written to the respondent that the time schedule had been handed over to the respondent's officer and they were asked to mobilise and start excavation work within 7 days starting from 25-5-1992. On 4-6-1992 the respondent wrote to the appellant that the site has been mobilised and the excavation has been completed by 4-6-1992. After excavation, the respondent wrote to the appellant for making running payments. On 22-7-1992, the appellant categorically stated that the appellant was not entitled to the running payments. However, Rs. 15,000.00 was released for payment to the respondent. It appears from the papers on record that on 28-7-1992, the parties agreed to a fresh schedule of work. The minutes of meeting is Annexure '5' to the affidavit of the appellant. The respondent was clearly informed that he had not brought any materials etc. till 3-8-1992 and he was directed to complete 'Lean concreting' by 5-8-1992. Annexure "6" also indicates that the appellant had informed the respondent that it had not started the work at the site. The respondent was specifically informed that it was going to get the work complete through other agency. Thereafter, the respondent filed the suit before the lower court, copy of which is Annexure "8".

(3.) Letters dated 24/06/1992 and 4/07/1992 (Annexure "CA-1" and "CA-2") are letters of the respondent to the Chief Engineer of the appellant. In these letters, they have indicated the revised rates of concreting at the present market position of metal and sand.