Tripura High Court
Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd ... vs The State Of Tripura on 26 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Commercial Appeal No.01 of 2023
&
Commercial Appeal No.02 of 2023
In Commercial Appeal No.01 of 2023
Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd (in short HSCL)
(A Government of India Undertaking), Tripura Unit, having its
local office at Jackson Gate Building (3rd Floor), Lenin Sarani,
Agartala, West Tripura-799001
......... Appellant-Defendant(s)
-Versus-
1. The State of Tripura
(represented by the Secretary, PWD), Secretariat, Capital Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala.
2. Director, Urban Development Department,
Government of Tripura, Agartala.
........ Respondent-Proforma Defendant(s)
3. Shri Dilip Kumar Kar
S/o Lt. Makhan Lal Kar, R/O- Agartala- Assam Road, Math
Chowmohani, P.O. Dhaleswar, P.S. East Agartala, Agartala, West
Tripura.
........ Respondent plaintiff(s)
In Commercial Appeal No.02 of 2023
Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd (in short HSCL)
(A Government of India Undertaking), Tripura Unit, having its
local office at Jackson Gate Building (3rd Floor), Lenin Sarani,
Agartala, West Tripura-799001
......... Appellant-Plaintiff (s)
-Versus-
Shri Dilip Kumar Kar
S/o Lt. Makhan Lal Kar, R/O- Agartala- Assam Road, Math
Chowmohani, P.O. Dhaleswar, P.S. East Agartala, Agartala, West
Tripura
........ Respondent-Defendant (s)
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B.N. Majumder, Sr. Adv.
Mr. D.J. Saha, Adv.
Mr. P.K. Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. B. Paul, Adv.
Mr. S. Sarkar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D.K. Biswas, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S.S. Debnath, Adv.
Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A.
Date of hearing : 06.08.2025
Date of delivery of : 26.09.2025
Judgment & order
YES NO
Whether fit for reporting : ✔
HON‟BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(S. Datta Purkayastha, J.)
Both the appeals are being disposed of by this analogous
judgment, as they arise out of the common judgment dated 16.02.2022 passed
by the learned District Commercial Court, West Tripura, Agartala, in
Commercial Suit No.6 of 2016 and Commercial Suit No.10 of 2016.
[2] The State of Tripura, through Public Works Department (PWD)
took up the work for covering some drains within Agartala Municipal
Corporation area and entrusted the said work to Hindustan Steelworks
Construction Limited [for short, 'the HSCL']. The HSCL in turn, through
Notice Inviting Tender [for short, 'the NIT'], entrusted the work to Mr. Dilip
Kumar Kar (hereinafter referred to as 'the contractor') vide NIT No.
HSCL/Tripura/UDD/Central(Part-II)/2012-13/06 dated 03.11. 2012
(hereinafter referred to as 'Part II work') of an estimated cost of
Rs.9,41,01,731/- and another NIT vide No. HSCL/Tripura/UDD/ Central(Part-
III)/2012-13/07 dated 20.11.2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'Part-III work')
of an estimated cost of Rs.8,70,36,452/-.
[3] The Standard Bid Document [for short, 'SBD'] containing terms
and conditions of such works was published along with the NIT. Time of
completion of both the works was 18 months. In both the matters, as per terms
of SBD, the contractor shall begin the work after signing the formal agreement.
[4] Two agreements under the nomenclature 'INTEGRITY PACT-
Central Drain' [Exbts.4 & 10 of Title Suit 11 of 2024, later on renumbered as
Commercial Suit No.6 of 2016] were signed by both the parties which contain
further terms and conditions relating to said contract works.
[5] Regarding Part-II work, a 'Go-Ahead Letter' dated 03.12.2012
[Exbt.5 of T.S.11 of 2014] was issued to the contractor mentioning that the
tender was accepted by the department for a value of Rs.9,52,78,003/- and he
was requested to mobilize and to start the works immediately, on all fronts,
simultaneously so as to complete the same within 18 months therefrom. The
said letter was also followed by the issuance of another letter of intent dated
11.12.2012 [Exbt.6 in T.S. 11 of 2014] issued by HSCL to the contractor
reiterating the condition that the work had to be completed within 18 months
and the date of starting of work would be reckoned after 7[seven] days from
the date of receipt of the go-ahead letter.
[6] In the case of Part-III work also, a similar 'Go-Ahead Letter' was
issued on 30.01.2013 [Exbt.8 of T.S.11 of 2014] to the contractor asking him to
start the work within 7[seven] days from the date of receipt of said letter. The
said letter was also followed by any another 'letter of intent' dated 02.02.2013
[Exbt.9 of T.S. 11 of 2014] containing similar terms.
[7] The relevant terms and conditions regarding delay, extension of
time and termination of the works under Clauses 23.9, 54.1 and 54.2 as are
mentioned in the SBDs of both the works [Exbt.1 of T.S.11 of 2014] are
extracted hereunder:
"23.9 Delays and extension of time:
No claim for compensation on account of delays or hindrances to the work
from any cause whatever shall lie, except as hereafter defined. Reasonable
extension of time will be allowed by the Director, Directorate of Urban
Development or his authorized representative or by the office competent to
sanction the extension, for unavoidable delays, such as may result from
causes, which in the opinion of the Director, Directorate of Urban
Development or his authorized representative, are undoubtedly beyond the
control of the contractor. The Director, Directorate of Urban Development or
his authorized representative shall assess the period of delay or hindrance
caused by any written instructions issued by him, at twenty five per cent in
excess or the actual working period so lost.
In the event of the Director, Directorate of Urban Development or his
authorized representative failing to issue necessary instructions and thereby
causing delay and hindrance to the contractor, the latter shall have the right
to claim an assessment of such delay by the Director, Directorate of Urban
Development or his authorized representative whose decision will be final and
binding. The contractor shall lodge in writing with the Director, Directorate
of Urban Development or his authorized representative a statement of claim
for any delay or hindrance referred to above, within fourteen days from its
commencement, otherwise no extension of time will be allowed.
Whenever authorized alterations or additions made during the progress of
the work are of such a nature in the opinion of the Director, Directorate of
Urban Development or his authorized representative as to justify an extension
of time in consequence thereof, such extension will be granted in writing by
the Director, Directorate of Urban Development or his authorized
representative or other competent authority when ordering such alterations
or additions.
*** *** ***
54.1. The Department may terminate the Contract if the contactor causes a
fundamental breach of the Contract.
54.2. Fundamental breaches of Contract include, but shall not be limited to
the following:
a) The contractor stops work for 28 days when no stoppage of work is
shown on the current program and the stoppage has not authorised by the
Engineer-in-Charge.
b) The Contractor is made bankrupt or goes into liquidation other than
for a reconstruction or amalgamation.
c) The Engineer-in-Charge gives Notice that failure to correct a
particular Defect is a fundamental breach of Contract and the Contractor
fails to correct it within a reasonable period of time determined by the
Engineer-in-Charge; and
d) The Contractor does not maintain a security which is required and
e) The Contractor has delayed the completion of works by the number
of days for which the maximum amount of liquidated damages can be paid as
defined.
f) If the contractor, in the judgment of the Department has engaged in
corrupt or fraudulent practices in competing for or in the executing the
contract.
For the purpose of this paragraph : "corrupt practice" means the offering,
giving, receiving or soliciting of anything of value to influence the action of a
public official in the procurement process or in the contract execution.
"Fraudulent practice" means a misrepresentation of facts in order to
influence a procurement process or the execution of a contract to the
detriment of the Government and includes collusive practice among
Tenderers (Prior to or after Tender submission) designed to establish Tender
prices at artificial non-competitive levels and deprive the Government of the
benefits of free and open competition.
54.1 Notwithstanding the above, the Department may terminate the contract
for convenience.
54.2 If the Contract is terminated, the Contractor shall stop work
immediately, make the Site safe and secured leave the Site as soon as
reasonably possible.
[8] The contractor commenced the Part II work accordingly, but after
some time, he instituted Title Suit No.01 of 2014 in the Court of the learned
Civil Judge, Senior Division, West Tripura, Agartala [renumbered as
Commercial Suit No.10 of 2016], alleging that after acceptance of his tender,
no agreement was signed by the parties; rather the HSCL suddenly issued said
'go-ahead letter' asking him to start the work at a lower rate and even no letter
of intent was ever furnished to him. He, accordingly, in good faith accumulated
all the infrastructures, purchased some valuable machines, collected manpower
and started the Part-II work. It is also stated by him that he could not start the
Part-III work as the HSCL did not hand over the site of the work to him.
[9] Regarding Part-II work, according to the contractor, by April,
2013 he was able to complete 1/4th of the assigned work and thereafter, he had
to go Chennai for his treatment on 17.06.2013 and returned there from on
05.07.2013 and during that period, the work was temporarily suspended.
During his stay at Chennai, the HSCL wrote a letter to him on 25.06.2013
[Exbt.16 in T.S.11 of 2014] through the Assistant General Manager, HSCL
(Civil) that neither the plaintiff resumed the work nor had responded to their
letters which were unethical, and therefore, it appeared to them that the
contractor was not interested to execute the balance work and therefore,
7[seven] days' notice was issued to him alleging that he was defaulter in
abandoning the contract; that he was persistently disregarding the instructions
of the Engineer and that he had failed to adhere to the agreed programme of
work by a margin of 10% of the stipulated period.
[10] By a letter dated 03.07.2013 said authority of HSCL gave him 48
hours' time as per Clause 109 of GCC of HSCL [according to the plaintiff, he
was not aware of any such clause as there was no formal agreement between
the parties] to rescind the contract and to get the balance work executed at his
risk and cost, and therefore, he was asked to send an authorized representative
on 06.07.2013 for taking joint measurements of the part work executed by him.
He was also directed to account for the reinforcement steel and to return the
surplus steel and steel shuttering plates issued to him on hire charges basis.
[11] On his return from Chennai, the contractor sent reply on
06.07.2013 [Exbt.15 of T.S.11 of 2014] to the HSCL that he did not sign any
agreement with the HSCL regarding the said works in terms of the SBD and
therefore, the allegation of suspension of the work by him was not tenable.
[12] The contractor also alleged in his suit that he had written a letter to
the Director, Urban Development Department, on 09.07.2013 [Exbt.7 in T.S.01
of 2014], requesting him to intervene in the matter for settlement of dispute
under Clause 22.2 of SBD, as he was termed as Arbitrator and in reply, the
Superintending Engineer of the Department informed him on 01.08.2013
[Exbt.8 in T.S.01 of 2014] that as the agreement was drawn between the
contractor and the HSCL for the aforesaid work, he was to take up the matter
with the HSCL for settlement dispute.
[13] Thereafter, the plaintiff applied under RTI Act for information as
to whether the Director of Urban Development Department was the arbitrator
in respect of said contracts or not and in reply, by the letter dated 26.08.2013,
Director, Urban Development Department informed him that he was not aware
of any such appointment as dispute settlement authority.
[14] The HSCL on the other hand, published one advertisement on
27.07.2013 in the web and in the newspapers inviting tenders for the
incomplete work by rescinding the contracts entered between them and the
contractor.
[15] Against the said action of the HSCL, initially the contractor
presented a writ petition in this court, and after withdrawing the same, he
instituted the said suit bearing T.S. 01 of 2014 praying for the following reliefs:
(i) Pass a decree of declaration that the cancellation of the oral agreement
commencing with the Go-ahead letters dated 30.07.2012 and 03.08.2012 and
fixing „Risk and Cost‟ condition is without authority and illegal.
(ii) Pass decree to the effect that the Defendant-1, after making a joint
measurement of the work done (1/4th Approx) by the Plaintiff, is liable to pay
to the Plaintiff at negotiated rate.
(iii) Pass decree to the effect that the Defendant-1 is liable to compensate the
loss suffered by the plaintiff by illegal rescission of the contract by paying
20% on the balance work in two contracts (Part-II and Part-III) i.e. on
estimated cost of Rs.9,52,78,000/- and Rs.8,81,24,000/-, which calculates to
Rs.5.7 crores in all.
(iv) Pass order as to cost and any other orders as may be considered proper
for ensuring justice.
[16] The HSCL also thereafter instituted T.S.11 of 2014 alleging that
the contractor, having stood as the lowest tenderer, reduced his rate from 5%
above the estimated cost to 1.25% on negotiation in respect of Part-II work but
he expressed his inability to reduce the rate regarding Part-III work. Therefore,
his tenders were accepted by the HSCL without any further reduction in the
rates. According to the HSCL, the contractor also received the following
materials and advances:
i) 1207.92 MT reinforcement materials;
ii) Rs.1.40 crores against the reinforcement materials of 788.36 MT as brought by him;
iii) Rs.1,64,64,000/- on 19.01.2013 as part payment and Rs.56.16 (unit not mentioned)
on 18.01.2013 and a further sum of Rs.1,40,00,000/- on 18.04.2013;
iv) Payment of Rs.1,40,92,231/- on 25.04.2013 and Rs.56.18 (unit not mentioned) on
25.04.2013;
v) 199.60 MT of 12 mm dia TMT Bar, 219.96 MT of 8 mm dia TMT Bar and 788.36
MT of 12 mm dia TMT Bar;
vi)625 numbers of shuttering plates of measurement 1200X600, 590 numbers of
shuttering plates of measurement 600X600;
vii) 1600 pieces of shuttering plates on 31.03.2013 and 760 pieces and 180 pieces more
on 09.04.2013;
viii) 454 numbers of shuttering plates of measurement 1200x600;
ix) 902 numbers of shuttering plates of measurement 600X600.
[17] Thereafter, the HSCL issued a letter to the contractor on
06.06.2013 [Exbt.13 in TS 11 of 2014] asking him to resume the work
immediately but no response was received from him. They also sent another
request letter dated 14.6.2013 [Exbt.14 in TS 11 of 2014] for a table discussion
with Chairman-cum-Managing Director, HSCL, on 18.06.2013 but the
contractor did not respond to that letter too. They further sent another letter on
19.06.2013 [Exbt.3 in TS 01 of 2014], requesting the contractor to resume the
work by 24.06.2013 or to return the shuttering materials and unutilised steel.
Neither did he return all these materials nor complete the works, rather, by his
letter dated 06.07.2013 [Exbt.6 of TS 01 of 2014], he contended that no
agreement was signed by him in connection with the aforesaid works. He also
sent one notice through his Advocate, Mr. D.K. Biswas in the similar line.
[18] It is also stated by HSCL that the contractor received a total sum
of Rs.4,45,56,231/- along with the materials and shuttering plates as indicated
earlier, and considering the default of the contractor, he was served with a
letter on 03.07.2013 under Clause 109 of GCC asking him to resume the work
within 48 hours; otherwise, the contract work would be rescinded at his risk
and cost. He was also asked to send one authorized representative on
06.07.2013 for taking the joint measurement of the executed part of the
contract work, but he did not attend the same.
[19] Being compelled, they again issued NIT for the rest incomplete
works and entrusted the same to one M/s Pobi Technologies and Construction
Private Limited for a value of Rs.9,13,88,275/- for Part-III work and for
Rs.9,26,59,302/- for Part-II work.
[20] Finally, the HSCL prayed for a decree in that suit seeking the
following reliefs:
A) A Decree of declaration that the defendant willfully and deliberately
neglected to perform his part of contract thus causing damage to the plaintiff;
B) A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the sum of Rs. 5,00,56,231,00
(Rupees five crores fifty six thousand two hundred and thirty one) from the
defendant being the excess payment received by him and also the return of
the balance of the materials issued to him as stated in the plaint hereinabove
and also the return of the steel shutting plates and in the alternative the value
thereof as stated hereinabove and also the hire charges for the use and
utilization of the steel plates issued to the defendant on hire charges.
C) The sum of Rs.65,26,265.00 (Rupees sixty five lakhs twenty six thousand
two hundred and sixty five) being the excess payment made for execution of
the balance work of M/S. Pobi Technologies and Contractions Pvt. Ltd. for
Go Ahead Letter under No.HSCL/Tripura/ Central (Part-II)/2013/767 dated
14.08.2013 Ahead Letter under No.HSCL/Trip Central(Part-III)/2013/768
dated 14.08.201
D) Interest over the dues from 25.06.2013 payment @ 18% per annum;
E) Appointment of a Receiver over the properties as stated hereinabove;
F) Costs of the suit and incidental thereof:
G) Any other relief(s) as may deem fit and proper.
[21] In T.S.01 of 2014, the contractor, Dilip Kumar Kar, examined
himself as PW-1 and proved certain documents and on behalf of the HSCL,
one Sanjoy Kumar Thakur was examined as DW-1 but he did not prove any
document. Another Barun Kumar Sarkar submitted his examination-in-chief on
behalf of HSCL but there was no cross-examination of said witness.
[22] In T.S. 11 of 2014, said Sanjoy Kumar Thakur was examined as
PW-1 for HSCL and he proved certain documents. Sri Barun Kumar Sarkar
was also examined as PW-2. The contractor, Sri Dilip Kumar Kar, examined
himself as DW-1 but he did not submit any document.
[23] Finally, learned trial court by the common judgment held that
termination of the contract was arbitrary, inasmuch as the completion of the
work period was 18 months but only after 8 months, M/s Pobi Technologies
and Construction Private Limited was engaged to do the rest works. On the
count of loss of profits due to illegal termination of contract, learned trial Court
awarded Rs.1,41,15,300/- (15% of the total value of the work) along with 6%
interest per annum thereupon from the date of filing of the suit in favour of the
contractor. Leaned trial Court also held that the HSCL did not lead any
evidence to prove that the alleged materials were supplied to the contractor, as
the copies of reinforcement register were not proved and moreover, the
measurement register was also not proved in accordance with law. As a result,
the Commercial Suit No.06 of 2016 instituted by the HSCL was dismissed.
[24] The HSCL now preferred both these appeals challenging the said
common judgment and decree. The Commercial Appeal No.01 of 2023 is
preferred against the part decree passed in favour of the plaintiff-contractor and
Commercial Appeal No.02 of 2023 is preferred against the dismissal of the
Commercial Suit No.06 of 2016.
[25] Mr. B. N. Majumder, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant-HSCL, submits that despite repeated letters sent to the contractor, he
failed to respond to those letters and did not even inform the HSCL about his
medical treatment at Chennai. Referring to the letter dated 19.06.2013 [Exbt.3
of T.S.01 of 2014], learned senior counsel submits that the contractor in
violation of the terms of contract, had abandoned the work.
[26] Mr. Nandi Majumder, learned senior counsel, also submits that
repeated reminders were issued to the plaintiff to resume the works but he did
not respond. Therefore, the HSCL vide letter dated 25.06.2013 [Exbt.4 of
T.S.01 of 2014] issued 7 days' notice to the Contractor invoking Clause 109 of
NIT/GCC of HSCL treating him as defaulter and rightly terminated the
contract, but the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact.
[27] Mr. Nandi Majumder, learned senior counsel, also relies on a
decision of the Supreme Court in case of Trimex International FZE Ltd.,
Dubai vs. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. India, 2010 AIR SCW 909, wherein it was
observed that once the contract is concluded orally or in writing, the mere fact
that a formal contract has to be prepared and initialed by the parties would not
affect either the acceptance of the contract so entered into or implementation
thereof, even if the formal contract has never been initialed.
[28] Ld. Counsel Mr. G.K. Nama, on behalf of the contractor, submits
that when there was no formal agreement signed by the parties, cancellation of
the contract invoking clause 109 of GCC was not permissible, and moreover,
there was no such clause incorporated in the SBD. Therefore, the rescission of
the contract by the HSCL was illegal.
[29] We have taken into consideration the submissions of both sides.
The plaintiff in his evidence in T.S. 01 of 2014 stated that on 17.06.2013 he
left for Chennai and returned to Agartala on 05.07.2013 and during said span
of 20 days, the work was suspended for a short period. There is no cross-
examination or denial of the said part of evidence from the side of HSCL. The
letter dated 06.06.2013 [Exbt.13 of T.S. 11 of 2014] was issued by the HSCL
on 05.06.2013 alleging that on their site visit, they did not find any labour
working in drain Nos.18(a), 18(b), 18(c) and 16(a) and the labour shed was
found dismantled, and therefore, the HSCL presumed that the contractor had
unilaterally stopped the work and thus, they issued the said letter asking him to
resume the work immediately. A copy of the postal tracking report is also
placed in evidence along with the said letter but there is no indication therein
that the said letter was ever served upon the contractor.
[30] On 14.06.2013, another letter was issued to the contractor by
HSCL [Exbt.14 of T.S.11 of 2014] alleging that the work was stopped from
05.06.2013 and therefore, he was asked to join in a table discussion on
18.06.2013 with the CMD of HSCL at Kolkata. It appears that one Indrajit
Debnath received the said letter on behalf of the contractor but who was said
Indrajit Debnath, was not disclosed by the HSCL in their pleadings or in
evidence to establish that said letter was actually served upon the contractor. In
the said letter dated 14.06.2013, the HSCL stated also that the progress of the
work was satisfactory and the contractor had already completed the work to the
extent of Rs.1.10 crores.
[31] In the SBD, there is a termination clause (Clause No.54) as
indicated earlier that the department may terminate the contract if the
contractor stops the work for 28 days when no stoppage of work is shown on
the current programme and the stoppage has not been authorized by the
Engineer-in-Charge. The HSCL did not resort to said clause to cancel the
contract, rather they applied clause 109 of GCC to rescind it. Said clause is not
applicable to the contractor, for, no such clause finds its place either in SBD or
in any other subsequent document signed by the parties relating to said work.
Therefore, rescission of contract based on said clause is illegal and the learned
trial Court has rightly held that the rescission of contract by the HSCL was
arbitrary.
[32] While granting loss of profit to the contractor, learned trial Court
has relied on paragraph No.11 of a decision of the Apex Court in M/s. A.T.
Brij Paul Singh & others vs. State of Gujarat, (1984) 4 SCC 59 and quantified
the compensation @15% of the estimated cost of Rs.9,41,01,731/- and granted
damages to the tune of Rs.1,41,15,259/-. In the relevant paragraph No.11 of the
said judgment, the Apex Court affirmed the method of compensation assessed
by the High Court considering the attending facts and circumstances of said
case at 15% of the value of the remaining part of the contract work (emphasis
laid) and not 15% of the value of the estimated cost. The said relevant
paragraph No.11 is extracted hereunder:
11. Now if it is well-established that the respondent was guilty of breach of
contract inasmuch as the rescission of contract by the respondent is held to be
unjustified, and the plaintiff-contractor had executed a part of the works
contract, the contractor would be entitled to damages by way of loss of profit.
Adopting the measure accepted by the High Court in the facts and
circumstances of the case between the same parties and for the same type of
work at 15% of the value of the remaining parts of the work contract, the
damages for loss of profit can be measured.
[33] The contractor did not specifically state as to how much of the
Part-II work was completed by him till rescission. Only a general statement is
made by him in his pleading that within April, 2013 he could complete 1/4th of
the assigned work of Part-II. On the other hand, the HSCL in their letter dated
14.06.2013 [Exbt.14 in T.S.11 of 2014] indicated that the contactor completed
the work of Rs.1.10 crores till the issuance of said letter. In absence of any
other cogent evidence, said assertion is being taken into consideration for
assessment of loss of profit without disturbing the procedure as adopted by
learned trial Court in this regard. We assess loss of profit, therefore, in the
following manner:
Value of the Part-II work as agreed by = Rs.9,52,78,003/-
the parties
Value of the incomplete work
(Rs.9,52,78,003-Rs.1.10 crores) = Rs.8,42,78,003/-
15% of Rs.8,42,78,003/- = Rs.1,26,41,700/-
Loss of profit is, therefore, assessed at Rs.1,26,41,700/-[Rupees
One crore Twenty Six lakhs Forty One thousand Seven hundred].
[34] Though the basic plea of the contractor is that as there was no
signed agreement between the parties, the cancellation of the contract was
illegal, but such logic cannot be accepted for the reason that several terms and
conditions of the contract were already mentioned in the SBD which were
accepted by the contractor and thereafter, another agreement under the
nomenclature 'Integrity Pact' was also signed by both the parties. The HSCL
also issued a letter of intent containing further terms and conditions, and
impliedly accepting the same, the contractor started the work. But it is also
surprising as to how a government undertaking like HSCL could go for public
works involving huge amounts without any formal agreement signed by and
between the parties.
[35] So far as the claims of the HSCL in respect of their suit bearing
Commercial Suit No.06 of 2016 are concerned, the primary relief sought in this
suit is to declare that the defendant wilfully and deliberately neglected to
perform his part of contract, thereby causing damage to them. Consequent to
that relief, they have also sought for a relief of declaration of their entitlement
to Rs.5,00,56,231/- [Rupees Five crores Fifty Six thousand Two hundred
Thirty One] for excess amount paid to the contractor and further,
Rs.65,26,265/- [Rupees Sixty Five lakhs Twenty Six thousand Two hundred
Sixty Five] being the excess payment made to M/s Pobi Technologies and
Construction Private Ltd. for execution of the balance work. Learned trial
Court declined the said reliefs as the primary relief of declaration of deliberate
negligence of the contractor was declined.
[36] Regarding the prayer of HSCL for return of steel shutting plates,
learned trial Court has held that the copies of reinforcement register was not
proved into evidence and the measurement register was also not properly
proved though placed on evidence.
[37] We do not find any valid reason to disturb the aforesaid findings
of the learned trial Court.
[38] In view of the above discussions, the Commercial Appeal No.01
of 2023 arising out of Commercial Suit No.10 of 2016 is partly allowed and
the Commercial Appeal No.02 of 2023 arising out of Commercial Suit No.06
of 2016 is dismissed.
The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court in
connection with Title Suit No.11 of 2014 [renumbered as Commercial Suit
No.06 of 2016] are hereby affirmed.
It is held that the contractor is entitled to Rs.1,26,41,700/- [Rupees
One crore Twenty Six lakhs Forty One thousand Seven hundred] from the
HSCL along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of Title Suit
No.01 of 2014 [renumbered as Commercial Suit No.10 of 2016] till
payment/realisation. The default interest as allowed by the learned trial Court is
interfered with and set aside.
No order as to cost(s).
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
Registry is to prepare decree accordingly and to re-consign the
records of the learned Court below with copies of this judgment and decree.
(S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
SUJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SUJAY GHOSH
Date: 2025.09.26 13:33:04 +05'30'
Sujay
