SACHINDRA ELECTRONICS Vs. BHARAT COKING COAL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31st August, 2005 passed by Sub -Judge Dhanbad in Money Suit No.30/94 whereby he has dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff/appellant for a decree for recovery of sum of Rs. 6,70,439.50.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS case is that it is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of electrical installation/erection commissioning etc. sometime in 1987. The defendants/respondent no.1 M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. invited tender from a reputed electrical contractors for the work of installation of 2 x 5 MVA 33KV/33 KV Electric Sub -station at Amlabad Colliery. Plaintiff submitted its tender with Bhowra Area of BCCL and the tender was accepted by the defendants/respondents. Accordingly the work order dated 5.8.87 was issued by the General Manager, Bhowra Area of Defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff for execution of the work of commissioning of 33 KV/33 KV Sub -Station at Amlabad Colliery as per the terms and conditions contained in the said work order. It is further pleaded that as per the terms and conditions of the aforesaid contract, the defendant no.1 was to provide access to and possession of the site to the plaintiff within a reasonable time to start and execute the work and accordingly the plaintiffs performance of the contractual job was dependent upon availability of site. It is alleged that the defendant miserably failed to afford the access and possession of the site which not only delayed the starting of the work but also its execution considerably. For this reason only despite issuance of work order on 5.8.87, the actual Memorandum of Agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 for execution of the said work was executed on 8.5.88. Further case of the plaintiff is that as per terms of the contract, major civil works, like construction of Control Room building, construction of foundation for installation of transformer, digging of trenches for cable laying etc. were not within the scope of plaintiffs work and it was stipulated that defendant -Company would get these civil works executed by some other agency/ contractor and hand over the same to the plaintiff at the proper time but the defendant failed miserably as construction/execution of various civil works was unduly delayed. Plaintiffs further case is that at the time of starting of the work of the commissioning of Sub -station, the defendant -Company could not provide or even earmark total/exact space on which the outdoor installation like transformers, switches etc. were to be installed but the officials of the Project Committee of Amlabad Project requested the plaintiff to start the work but the execution of the job was interrupted on several occasions.

(3.) PLAINTIFFS further case is that defendant -Company did not want to take the responsibility of their own fault and tended to look for scapegoat to conceal their inefficiency, knowing well that the plaintiff was in no way liable for the default. In reply to the correspondences, the plaintiff explained the circumstances for delaying the execution of work and despite assurance given by the defendant -Company to resume the work, but even then the contract of the plaintiff was unilaterally, arbitrarily and illegally terminated. Having come to know of this termination on 10.4.91, the plaintiff made serious protests against this termination before the higher officials of defendant No.1 and requested to reconsider his decision of termination and also allow the plaintiff to complete the remaining 20% job and the defendants got the work completed by their own workmen with the components which had already been supplied by the plaintiff. It is further stated that the plaintiff was willing to perform the part of the contract, but the defendants had miserably failed to perform their part and thus this amounts to breach of contract on the part of defendant No.1 and as such, the plaintiff is entitled to get payment of 80% works executed by it with interest @ 12% along with refund of earnest money. Though the plaintiff requested the defendants time and again to pay the outstanding bills, but the defendants never responded to the plaintiffs demands and finally the plaintiff got one legal notice served on defendant No.2 through his lawyer, but the defendant did not care to reply even that notice.