under the extended period. This obviously has financial implications. The respondent on his part had all along been refusing to re-fix the DP and insisting on granting only extensions. This too had, obviously, financial implications. Else, if there were no financial implications, there was no reason for the respondent not to re-fix the DP in the first instance itself, ie, beyond 15.7.2005. So, the fact that the re-fixing of the DP has substantial financial implications has in effect been admitted by the respondent. Further, if the rates after price variation were not beneficial to the respondent, why the respondent did not fore-close the contract and go in for a fresh contract is a question that begs answer. Furthermore, the respondent has treated the originally refixed date of 15.7.2005 as the 'contracted delivery date of 15.7.2005' in terms of his submissions vide paragraph(3) of his counter. Likewise, why the subsequently refixed DD of 31.10.2006 cannot be treated as contracted delivery date of 31.10.2006 has not been clarified by the respondent. Furthermore, the respondent has sought to rely on Clause 3400(D) of the IRS Conditions of Contract for disallowing the price variation due to hike in the cost of raw material. However, the said Clause deals with firstly, the taxes and duties and not the material cost and, secondly, for the contractual currency after the date of delivery, not prior. Hence, the respondent's counter cannot be acceded to the claimant's claim, therefore, stands.”
