Contractor sued irrigation authorities after his work order was terminated and remaining work given to another contractor, claiming unpaid dues for extra work. The High Court upheld the trial court's partial decree of Rs.4,41,000 with 9% interest, holding delay was not solely attributable to the plaintiff.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1537 OF 2015 (MON)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI K S BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
(B) SECRETARY TO IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.P.MALIPATIL, AGA FOR R2; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.04.2015 PASSED IN O.S.No.240/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MYSORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri K.S. Bheemaiah, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri T.P. Malipatil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the second respondent. First respondent though served remained absent.
NC: 2024:KHC:36588 RFA No. 1537 of 2015
Plaintiff has been awarded the contract to carry out the work as per Ex.P.2 work order. Ex.P.3 is the tender agreement executed by the plaintiff.
delay in completing the contractual work, resulting in terminating the contract and forfeiting the remaining amount to be paid to the work that has been carried out by the plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the suit.
Court raised the following issues:
got examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record as many as 39 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1
to P.39 comprising of SPA at Ex.P.1, work order at Ex.P.2, tender agreement at Ex.P.3, AEE letter at Ex.P.4, photos at Exs.P.5 to 13, letter copy at Ex.P.14, letter at Ex.P.15, tender notification at Ex.P.16, notice copy at Ex.P.17, postal acknowledgments at Ex.P.18 to 21, Postal Receipt at Ex.P.22 to 26; Caveat copy at Ex.P.27, Inspection tippani at Ex.P.28, Letter copy at Ex.P.29, Application at Ex.P.30, Letter at Ex.P.31, Postal acknowledgment at Ex.P.32, Letter at Ex.P.33, Postal receipts at Ex.P.34 and 35, Postal acknowledgment at Ex.P.36 and 37; Tender Notification at Ex.P.38, Copy of Inspection report at Ex.P.39.
report at Ex.D12, copy of letter at Ex.D13, Order of Executive Engineer copy at Ex.D14, Representation copy at Ex.D15, Application copy at Ex.D16, Representation copy at Ex.D17, Copy of report at Ex.D18, Phonegram copy at Ex.D19, Notice Copy at Ex.D20, Notice copy at Ex.D21, Inspection report copy at Ex.D22, Notice copy at Ex.D23, Notice copy at Ex.D24, Notice copy at Ex.D25, Reply copy at Ex.D26, Report copy at Ex.D27, Report copy at Ex.D28, Report copy at Ex.D29, Final Notice copy at Ex.D30, copy of cancellation agreement at Ex.D31, Tender documents copy at Ex.D32, copy of report at Ex.D33, copy of IRL at Ex.D34, Calculation statement copy at Ex.D35 to Ex.D39, Copy of drawing sheet at Ex.D40.
decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part by granting an amount in a of Rs.4,41,000/- with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of completion of the work till realization from the defendants.
NC: 2024:KHC:36588 RFA No. 1537 of 2015
NC: 2024:KHC:36588 RFA No. 1537 of 2015
of the Hon'ble Trial Court has directed the Defendants to pay a sum of Rs.4,41,000/-, along with interest from the date of completion of the work and as such the said finding is liable to be reversed by this Hon'ble Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:36588 RFA No. 1537 of 2015
that the Plaintiff is entitled for 9% interest from the date of completion of the work by the Defendant till the date of realisation.
appellants reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum contended that, even though there is no specific time limit fixed under the work order vide Ex.P.2, the tender agreement executed by the plaintiff would go to show that the work was to be completed in a time bound manner. But, there was no commencement of work at all as agreed by the plaintiff.
Defendants wrote a letter vide Ex.P.4 where under there was a direction to the plaintiff to conclude the work in a time bound manner. When all the efforts were made by the appellants were not heeded the desired result, the work order was terminated by the defendants and the remaining work was got executed by some other contractor and therefore, defendants were not bound to pay any amount, much less the amount of Rs.4,41,000/- with interest at 9% and sought for allowing the appeal.
representing the second respondent submits that when once the earmarked funds were given to the appellants and work is to be completed, the Government has no other role except to supervise the work and therefore, suitable orders are to be passed.
Court.
work order Ex.P.2 was entrusted to the plaintiff who is the successful bidder.
cement concrete lining for chainage channel had been completed by the plaintiff to a major extent. However, commencement of the work was delayed according to the plaintiff because of the strike of the engineers. The strike that occurred at the relevant point of time of the engineers is not in dispute.
agreed between the parties. As such, plaintiff cannot be held liable for the said delay.
“19. In order to establish the contentions taken by the defendants that the plaintiff has failed to commence the work in time, the counsel appearing for the defendants has argued vehemently and brought to the notice of the court with regard to the notice issued by the defendants to the plaintiff. The notice produced before the court are marked as Ex.D2 and D3. Perusal of Ex.D2 and 3 clearly shows that the defendants have directed the plaintiff to commence the work immediately, but the admission made by DW2 in the cross- examination with regard to the handing over possession of the land to the plaintiff for commencement of the work, are quite
NC: 2024:KHC:36588 RFA No. 1537 of 2015
contrary to the Ex.D2 and D3. As already discussed above in detail, unless and until the possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff for commencement of work, notice issued by the defendants to the plaintiff is totally unsustainable. Therefore, Ex.D2 and D3 will not help the defendants in any way to establish their contention with regard to the delay caused for commencement of the work by the plaintiff at the spot. It is also important point to be noted that the Asst.Executive Engineer has written a letter to the Executive Engineer on 5.8.1998, the said document is produced before the court and marked as Ex.D4. The contents of Ex.D4 reads as under:-
“ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «�ÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÀÉ r.zÉêÀgÁd CgÀ¸ÀÄ £Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀgÀ¥À½ 61.00 jAzÀ 62.00 Q.«ÄÃ. ªÀgÉUÉ EgÀĪÀ 62£Éà Q.«ÄÃ. £À°è ¹ªÉÄAmï PÁAQæmï ºÉÆ¢PÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ²æà J£ï £ÁgÁAiÀÄt JgÀqÀ£Éà zÀeÉð UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ zÉêÀgÀ¸À£À ºÀ½î £ÀAd£ÀUÀÆqÀÄ vÁ¯ÉÆÃPÀÄ ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè EªÀjUÉ PÁªÀiÁUÁj DzÉñÀzÀ ¸ÀASÉå 90-97-98 ¢£ÁAPÀ 15-1 – 1998gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj PÁªÀiÁUÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 8-6-1998gÀAzÀÄ UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀ»¹PÉÆqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ”
Ex.D4 clearly establishes and proves beyond reasonable doubt that the possession of the land was handed over on 8.6.1998 to the plaintiff for commencement of the work. If really, there was no such procedure with regard to the handing over the possession of he land to the contractor for
NC: 2024:KHC:36588 RFA No. 1537 of 2015
commencement of the work, where was the necessity for the defendants to follow said procedure with regard to the handing over of the land. It is also pertinent to note that it is not the case of the defendants that there was no procedure for handing over possession of the land to the plaintiff for commencement of work as per terms and conditions of the contract. Therefore, Ex.D4 proves the contention of the plaintiff rather than the defendants. Therefore, except certain suggestions in the cross-examination of PW1, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW1 that there was a fault on the part of the plaintiff to commence the work within the time and caused loss to the defendants by the plaintiff. In fact, all the suggestions made in the cross-examination with regard to the commencement of the work have been denied by the PW1 emphatically. Similarly, the defendants have not at all placed any other material evidence to establish and prove the contentions taken by the defendants with regard to the same."
the distances from 61,000 to 62,000 kilometers earth excavation work was over. He also admits that the earth excavation work entrusted to some other contractor. The plaintiff has stated that his work - cement concrete lining for
NC: 2024:KHC:36588 RFA No. 1537 of 2015
chainage channel would commence only after earth excavation work is completed.
NC: 2024:KHC:36588 RFA No. 1537 of 2015
under progress and the engineers who are required to supervise, had inspected the commencement of work and were satisfied.
NC: 2024:KHC:36588 RFA No. 1537 of 2015
considered opinion that point Nos.1 to 3 are to be answered in favour of the plaintiff and point No.4 against the appellants.
In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 to 4
as above, following:
ORDER
Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed .
No order as to costs.
Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE
MR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73
3 issues framed by the court
Was the plaintiff contractor entitled to the decreed amount of Rs.4,41,000 with 9% interest despite delay in completing contractual work?
Were the defendants justified in terminating the work order citing inordinate delay by the plaintiff?
Did the trial court's judgment and decree suffer from legal infirmity or perversity warranting interference?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Managing Director, Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Limited
The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department (South), Mysore
The Executive Engineer, II V.C.C. Division, Mysore
Sri N Narayana
The State of Karnataka
V Srishananda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
