Calcutta High Court
Cognition Projects Pvt. Ltd vs Hooghly River Bridge Commissioners And ... on 17 July, 2017
Author: I. P. Mukerji
Bench: I. P. Mukerji
ORDER SHEET
AP 477 OF 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
COGNITION PROJECTS PVT. LTD.
Versus
HOOGHLY RIVER BRIDGE COMMISSIONERS AND ANOTHER
............
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI Date : 17th July, 2017.
Mr. B. Bhattacharyya, Mr. P. Mukherjee, sr. advocates, Mr. R. Dutta, Mr. D. Basu Mullick, Mr. B. Dasgupta...appear.
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, sr. advocate, Mr. S. Bhattacharyya, Mr. S. Dasupta...appear.
The Court : The contract in question has been terminated by the letter of the Vice-Chairman of the respondent no.1 on 29th May, 2017. The contract was for construction of Gangway-cum-Pontoon jetty at Falta in the district of South 24 Parganas.
This section 9 application was moved by the petitioner on 22nd June, 2017. It was alleged on their behalf that the termination of the contract by the respondents was wrongful, inasmuch as, the petitioner had performed a substantial percentage of the work. In those circumstances, I directed the parties to make a joint measurement of the work actually done by the petitioner till 29th May, 2017. The specific case of the petitioner was that after receipt of the show cause notice dated 16th May, 2017 from the respondents as to why the contract should not be terminated they speeded up the work. A substantial part of it was completed at the time of contract was terminated.
This joint measurement has been brought on record by way of a supplementary affidavit.
It appears from this report that 100% of the drawing work, 83% of supply and fabrication of pontoon as per approved drawing and specification, 71% of supply and fabrication of gangway had been completed. Thereafter, the petitioner 2 seems to have lost their way with regard to piling work, fitting and fixing of pipes , reinforcement work, etc. where the percentage of work done seems to be very low.
Mr. Bhattacharyya for the petitioner submits that this was due to breach of the obligations on the part of the respondents.
He submitted that if two months time was given to his client they would be able to complete the work as per the contract.
Mr. Mitra submitted that the contract had been terminated long ago. There was serious breach of contract on the part of the petitioner. The respondent Commissioner was in the process of awarding the contract to a third party.
To my mind for a long period of time, the respondents had been accommodating the petitioner. From the middle of May, 2016 the respondents had also been receiving a daily progress report from the petitioner. It was only after 26th May, 2016 when the Chairman of the respondent held a meeting with his officers taking note of the progress of the work that the contract was terminated with some haste on 29th May, 2017.
I also note that till this date the balance part of the contract has not been awarded to any other contractor.
In that perspective, I grant liberty to the petitioner to apply to the Chairman of the respondent Commissioner within two weeks from date stating that it will be able to complete the work within two months and that he should waive the notice of termination. The Chairman will consider such application in accordance with law by giving a short hearing to the petitioner within a further period of two weeks by a reasoned decision.
If the Chairman decides to revoke the termination of the contract, well and good. If he does not, the petitioner will have their remedy, if any, in arbitration.
As all the papers were before the court, affidavits were not invited. This position was accepted by the parties.
The statements made in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
This section 9 application [AP no.477 of 2017] is, accordingly, disposed of.
(I. P. MUKERJI, J.) Pkd.