Dismissed

Pralhad Ramu Bhoite. v. the State of Mah.Thro.Collector.

Bombay HC8 Jul 2009SA/314/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal, the Bombay High Court held that the contract terms regarding excess work and payment rates were clear. The court found no merit in the appellant's claim for higher rates or excess work beyond the tender scope, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The substantial question of law is answered against the appellant; the appeal is dismissed.

Pralhad Ramu Bhoite. Vs the State of Mah.Thro.Collector. — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 314 OF 1991

¶5

Office notes, office Court’s Judge’s orders. memoranda of Corum, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶6

[ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. ] DATE : 8TH JULY, 2009

¶7

The concurrent finding recorded against the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 18,708.74 reduced before the first appellate Court to the claim of Rs. 12,926.78 is the subject of challenge in the Second Appeal.

¶8

On 22/8/1991, the Appeal is admitted with following substantial question of law,

¶9

¶10

“ Interpretation of terms of contract in question involves the substantial question of law ”.

¶11

3. Shorn of the details, the appellant herein was a contractor for the works allotted by Govt. based on the contract terms recorded in the clauses thereunder. During the course of inter-se negotiations, the Department accepted that it will perform rolling work at its cost, but its financial benefits will be given to the appellant, the plaintiff. In the process of carrying the work, the appellant has effected excess work. The Department though had a solemn acceptance to pay to the plaintiff, even if rolling was effected by it, took a stand that such excess involved its liability only to the extent of 25 % and not beyond that. The contractor, plaintiff, has claimed charges of rolling beyond 25 % of the tender work. The Department had the measurements by

¶12

recording the levels of the road and the quantity

¶13

¶14

of the work. There was no warrant to measure the ditches. Additional bills furnished by the plaintiff were also considered. It is apparent, the calculations of Rs. 18,708/- furnished by the plaintiff, even by mathematical work, could not match to the details of the work done by him and the balance to which he has paid.

¶15

It was the case of the defendant that they have deducted 10 % towards shrinkage from the entire volume of work done by plaintiff, because the measurements were taken in another region at the request of the plaintiff. This was challenged by the plaintiff. The Department was deducting the same at the time of supplementary bill, because it had not deducted it in the earlier final bill. Thus, the contention of the plaintiff, reasonably and legally could not have been accepted. That apart, the plaintiff canvassed that the defendant paid him @ Rs. 4.20 ps. Per cubic meter for the work executed by him beyond 25

¶16

¶17

per cent of the work covered under the tender and not at the rate of Rs. 5.65 ps. under the tender.

¶18

He contended that the rate was Rs. 5.65 ps. inclusive of watering and rolling charges. Both the Courts did not accept the contention of the plaintiff and the interpretation to the terms of the contract did not require any other meaning to be inferred. The interpretation was logical, in tune and no foreign meaning could be inserted. The Second Appeal is devoid of merits. It is dismissed. Substantial question of law is answered against the plaintiff.

¶19

[ K.U.CHANDIWAL ] JUDGE

knp/SA314.91

Pralhad Ramu Bhoite. v. the State of Mah.Thro.Collector.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pralhad Ramu Bhoite. v. the State of Mah.Thro.Collector.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagabai Alias Sarubai Shridharapp and Anrs. Vs Sarmukhappa Bandyapp and Ors.

Hausabai Limbaji Padwalkar. Vs Chandar Babaji Pandhare and Others.

Sundrabai Mohaniraj Joshi and Anr. Vs the State of Maha. and Ors.

Krishnabai W/O Rangnath Shinde and Others Vs Pandurang Rama Andhare.

State of Maha Vs Shivaji Bapurao Hangarge

Madhavrao Sambhaji Dongre and Another. Vs Divisional Controller,M.S.R.T.C,and Another.