BINITA DUTTA Vs. VALECHHA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for declaration that the plaintiff company is entitled to complete the construction work in terms of the agreement dated 20.8.1997 and for a further declaration that the letter of termination of contract is illegal and void, permanent injunction and for recovery of money has preferred the instant appeal challenging the judgement and decree dated May 18, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), 4th Court at Alipore in Title Suit No.53 of 1999.

(2.) The plaintiff's case in a nutshell runs thus:

(3.) The plaintiff is a Private Limited Company carrying on the business of builders and contractors. The defendant No.1 being the promoters and builders of ownership apartment intended to construct a 5 storied building and invited offers from interested contractors. The plaintiff gave an offer by letters dated 08.7.1997 and 18.8.1997 for construction of a 5 storied building and the defendant accepted the said offer by a letter dated August 20,1997 with certain reservations. The plaintiff paid Rs. 50,000/- to the defendant as security deposit as per the agreed terms and conditions of the contract on August 20, 1997. The defendant No. 3 was appointed as an Architect and the plaintiff was supposed to work as per the advice and instruction and supervision of the said Architect. The Architect has no authority to terminate the contractor between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2. as per the agreed terms and conditions. The plaintiff recruited various staffs and advanced money to suppliers of materials so that the construction work can be completed within the scheduled time limit. The construction work continued and the plaintiff raised running bills up to the 8th bill and Mr. Amitabha Mitra, the Engineer who was assigned the job of supervision by the defendant No. 3 issued a letter to the plaintiff dated September 1, 1998 stating that he was satisfied with the work of construction carried on at the site and the quality of materials used therein. After the construction work started, the plaintiff was verbally informed by the promoter that the plaintiff was not required to do finishing work of project and the plaintiff was assured of reimbursement in the event he suffers any loss. The plaintiff told the defendant that if they have to do the structural job only it will not be possible for them to offer discount of 7.75% and the rate would be Rs. 450/- per sq.ft. for the structural job and not at the reduced rate of Rs. 415/- per sq.ft. Both the Architect and the promoter after a verbal discussion accepted such offer and the bills were made accordingly and the Architect checked and forwarded the running account bills up to Bill No. 8 dated 18.8.1998 and forwarded them for payment. The defendants raised dispute regarding the bills submitted by the plaintiff. The defendants without making any joint inspection of the works done by the plaintiff and without paying the bills was trying to engage another contractor for the balance works at the site.