9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant (hereinafter referred to as "the contractor"). The respondent - ONGC had preferred an appeal contending that the award in favor of the contractor (to the tune of Rs.7,05,048/- towards Claim No. 1 and Rs.12,21,436/- towards Claim No.6) was unsustainable: it had also appealed against the rejection of its counterclaim for Rs. 25,29,923.49/-. The brief facts necessary in the said case are that ONGC had called for a bid for the construction of warehouses. The contractor's bid was deemed most suitable and accepted on 14.03.1991. The dispute in the present case is confined to the question of the date from which the escalation claim was calculable. ONGC, based on the final bill cleared by it, contended the relevant date, to be 14.03.1991 i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , payable to the contractor. The ONGC's appeal under Section 39 of the Act was allowed by the impugned order. A plain reading of the order would show that the High Court proceeded to interpret the relevant stipulation in the contract i.e. Clause 10C(i) in the context of the parties' positions. The High Court went by the fact that bids were submitted on 4th March, 1991, and that Minutes of the Conference revealed that mistakes were found in the offer document which was the rationale for the revision of the price paid on 27th January, 1992. By curious reasoning, the Court was of the opinion that the contractor's action in revising its offer, considering the "prices prevailing on that day" was not sufficient reason for it to contend that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtion extracted from the decision in Sundarsan Trading Co. case wherein it was said that by purporting to construe the contract the Court could not take upon itself the burden of saying that this was contrary to the contract and, as such, beyond jurisdiction. That is exactly what the Court has done in the instant case. Therefore, the issue stands covered by this decision and the learned counsel for the respondents could not in the face of this decision argue otherwise." In "Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir" reported in (1992) 4 SCC 217 by a three Judges Bench considered the previous authorities especially ruling of the Privy Council in "Champsey Bhara and Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd.", and [A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
