STATE OF H.P. Vs. KAPIL DEV BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants, who aggrieved by the judgment passed by learned trial Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed for recovery of recovery of Rs.5,35,000/-? alongwith future interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing the suit till its realization, have filed the instant first appeal. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment yes

(2.) It is not in dispute that the facts as necessary for the adjudication of this appeal has been correctly reproduced . by the Court below, therefore, the same are extracted as it is.

(3.) Sh. Kapil Dev Bansal, carrying on the business in the name and style of 'M/s Kapil Dev Constructions (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) filed the suit for declaration and recovery of Rs.5,35,000/-? on the allegations that he is a Class 'A' contractor enlisted with the H.P.P.W.D. for execution of civil works relating to buildings and roads and that he has been executing civil works for various departments of the State of H.P. as well as other organizations. During the course of his business, he had entered into a contract with the State of H.P. (hereinafter referred to as defendant No.1), through the Executive Engineer, Bilaspur Division No.II HPPWD, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as defendant No.2) for the execution of the work relating to "Improvement of riding quality to NH-?88 (Shimla-? Bilaspur-? Hamirpur-? Nadaun-? Ranital-? Kangra road) from Km 60/600 to 75/600 (SH: providing Bituminous macadam layer of 50 mm thickness by correcting old surface by bituminous macadam, providing and laying semi-?dense bituminous concrete and PCC road side drain Km 60/600 to 75/600)" (hereinafter referred to as Work). The said contract between the parties was reduced into writing on the standard form of contract adopted by defendant No.1 for civil works. It was further averred that the tender of the plaintiff was duly accepted for and on behalf of defendant No.1 by defendant No.2, who is authorised under Article 299 of the Constitution of India to enter into contracts for and behalf of defendant No.1 vide letter dated 5.6.2000 with a time limit of six months for its completion. However, the said letter was not despatched by the defendants and that only on 23.6.2000, it was posted. The stipulated date of start of the work was 15 days from the issue of letter of award dated 5.6.2000. It was further averred that immediately after posting the said letter of award on 23.6.2000, defendant No.2 issued another letter dated 27.6.2000 purporting to be a corrigendum to the award letter dated 20.6.2000 . As far as those conditions contained in letter dated 27.6.2000 were concerned, the same had never been agreed upon the plaintiff. In fact, the said unilateral action of imposing conditions was protested by the plaintiff but defendant No.2 refused to withdraw the unilateral corrigendum. Although, the agreement between the parties comprised of reciprocal promises was expressly fixed by the agreement. However, the nature of the transaction between the parties required the defendants to perform their part of performance relating to:-?