25.01.2008 is a typographical error. A perusal of the tender document would show that the penalty clause enables the defendants to deduct 0.5% of the value of the delayed goods are un-performed services for each day of delay subject to a ceiling of 10% of the total value of the contract. However, while entering into the agreement, the said quantum of penalty is reduced to 0 . 1% per day subject to a maximum of 5% of the contract value. The document Ex.P2 is signed by the Executive Engineer (Mechanical) of the Chennai Corporation. I do not think the defendants could raise a plea that the tender document would alone prevail because the agreement for supply is subsequent to the tender document and under the agreement, the quantum of penalty is altered. Therefore, it could be only taken as a conscious alteration of the quantum of penalty by the parties to the contract. In my considered opinion Ex.P2 alone would govern the situation seen and not the tender conditions since Ex.P2 supersedes the tender conditions. It should also be borne in mind Ex.P2, subsequent to the award of the contract to the plaintiff. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the defendants were not justified in deducting or withholding the 10% of the contract value, viz., a sum of Rs.52,03,340.50. As per the Clause 15 of the contract for supply of materials dated 25.01.2008, marked as Ex.P2, defendants are entitled to deduct only 5% of the contract value. Therefore, Issue No.2 is answered the effect that the
