S S Range Gowda vs The Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Niyamitha on 5 July, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

S S Range Gowda vs The Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Niyamitha on 5 July, 2011

Bench: H.G.Ramesh

E
IN THE: HIGH COURT OF KARNA'I'AKA AT BANGALORE

DA'I'EI[) THIS THE am DAY OF' JULY 29: :-
PRESENT  """"

THEE HONBLE Ex/£R,.J.S.K1-EEHAR, CHIEH--§ﬁ§$'§5{'CE:-'.._. 

AND '%   1' 
THE HONBLE MR.JU3'§:CE" H.:3-;.RAME§:3§3  "

WRIT APPEAL No.4036;!2€>:'i(G:S'£gi'Ea1\;; «  

WP N0.1O793/'2»('3V1»1 (GfﬁfTE?_\B  

Writ Appeal No.4036;'2x0l 1..*:Gnij-'j;j:'N):
Between:  'M ' 3' vv   %

Sri S.S.Range Crf)'Wd'c1  

S / <),1at€ Shixra-ppajbVZ" 

A/21.73 }«'€f:11f'S 4'  'V ._ __

C1.":1SS'I C<)rLt1'e1.::t<_u°  . 4'   
No. 134,  "Vf*IT"'Ev'I*egZ_1A;, 1.?' .BLj(;l«:.._w 
2"" Stage,   .
Ba11g21IQr<3'.'?§2.  "   ' ' ..,AppeHant

V'{1:_a_;,? L.Pai:iI, Adm}

Andi, ..

 '~  3.  (2.3:/wary Né€:*--5aka:*i Nigama Niyamitha

V WNQ1V>Vs.5%RVD.QvQfﬁC€ Buiiding, Amanda Rae Circle
_  Baz3s§aii:};té'  " n
" ._ _Dg'£:§n::gi:1g DiI'€(":fii)1'.

_ 2. Tfiéz P;-ia:i:gi:g_gi:1g I)ir6«::E;<):*

Nr:m? aE'i~ Q16 Cauvérgg Nciécérz-wag: Nigzznza Niyamiiha

V' " E3£.'RI}C> C.!ffi:::<% Buildingg Amanda R210 Circle?

V . E5233: §§21i{} ET? .

VA   3_. "'E'h<% {ihéef §1'§»f,{i§E€:?{ffE'

i§'§'§§.:£i2§l§{>§'E ;'??S{:s:: iii":  L, :"s!Ej;'s<}:'€:,



2
4. The Executive E1:1§V/{ineer
CNNL No.2 K.-abini Cane} Division
Koﬂegal.

5. Shri P.Ravishankar _ _  
Classvi Contraeter, 5209, 817"   

E8106}; 3"? Stage, Dattagaiii     _    
Mysere 44. '::..s»o'9:R&S£)0>I>?_¢€1/1,:S. " 

[Sri D.N,Nar1ju.r1da  
Sri K.S.Bhara*:h Kumar. Adv. fer RE :64, V
Sri K.S;Bheemaiah, Ady-."'f3ijR5}_. 

This Writ Appe:;{? is.  Section 4 of the
Karnataka High C0urtWACte_V p.1fa§%in;§.Vte-.I'V_:3e%: aside the order
passed in the '»'Vfii__Pet§i:ioi1'  ,?' 1._I*dated 05.04.2011.
   

Between:     .  -- " 
S.S.Ra1i;ge~ (:{dwde% 1; s. " V

S/o.1at;e ShiV'2gp--pa  'V

Aged abeuté 7&3   _ V'

C1ass~I Covntraetor  _  '

N0s13%'5 1SV~7.H'Lvv1\/Iain Road

13% bizjeke, 2*" Stage', Néxgarabhavi

-"'.,.v_Ban:gfaIQ:e I52.  .....  ...Pe§:i'::i0:1er

I   

  Sri R.L.Fat:E.L Adveeaiie)

1. The Cauir-ery Neeravari Nigama Niyaelitha
415* ﬂe«Qr;' Coffee Board Building
. N0.E..,__E3r.Ambeékar Veedhi
A' Bailgaigére e 1

"  =.§Rie'p1*eSe:1i:eé by its Eéaeagieg §)§ree:ét{>r,

   'Q26 Managing Qireetez'

Cgawxesﬁx §'\§eer21:rari Nigama E*E§}ig:r:3iiE1z:
<1»??? ﬂeer, Ceffee Beaed B:;i1€:Ei:1§;:
§'€{;'x E, §}:*.A::*:'ee{%}<:a;f §'§i3€f{'};,h§§§f:%EEg2?i§{}E"€ e E,

" 3. ';%'%:e {}§7°§i<':e §§_.iﬁdTiZ?1§_;§, Azézzmiizi Rzzsis {:§§{',§§j?

32% see: ggzzi :::re 5



M 

W  xijg,/~§_/'gx\%€'£

wwwNumm'<maw

3 T he Chief Engineer
Irrigatien South CNNL
Mysore.

4. T he Executive Engineer' V  
CNNL, N02, Kahihi Cane'? D.i_VisiQi2_
Koilegai.   '

This Writ Petitioimfilediwttihdei' Articles  and 227 of
the Cﬁenstitution of II/1Cﬁ'}:9."p'}:';i3'V;yi'%':}Vg tie'L<}uai_sh the order dated
11.2.2011 issued by respori:i'e:1t wide Ar1neXure~L,
quash the order ciateei' "1<4{;'1.2'; Q_10'7_isas23feé by respondent

110,2 vide A1mexu_i""_é:~K}_ ar§:d...ete<.g'v is This Writ' Petition Coming on for orders this <ia§,?: J1£.~:i"ic:é'ideI;i\7ereci the following:

"" °~JUDG'1v1'i:NT J."{O'raI) -- I J.s.KI%:_mL4s.iiV;'i"::V,s Thie, iiistezrit has been filed by the appefiiaht sex '~s,s"te éissaii a motion bench order dated "giassedmt3y a Iearned single Judge of this court I 'X/Vii!" 10793,! 11 deeiining interim reiief prayed fer by the -afipkeiiaht.

2,V__v'fEefere hearing submissisns at the hands ef the V"EeaimeeEv..e'eunse§ fer the parties, we were ef the view; that in s:3:"'de_:f5 to éetermihe the veracity ef the §:"&}?€§' made in the _,,i€is€:ee":: writ aepeah it weuéé he imperative? fee as ta '5:{'§j*;§§;i{?i§3;§',€ e:: the §EE€f§'§§S of ilhe <éeht4:e%2°ees§; eaiseé is Writ. ?etitéeh E%E{i>tit{"}i?§:3;'i 3;. is the e:§s.>:"e%s2:ie§ vieve ef the matter' ie2::.r:2e:;:E é:%=s:2:.mse:§ §e:3:' tiie §"§Vé§ ;;;:;::*'é,§es i~$'i:.E1,'¥./giﬁi/§% t§"::::;¥;; 'fxfrit; 6.5%; «gm mwwwm Q :;"é2m%feM,« 4 » --.

Petition No.1€}7'93/ 11 may be taken up aleng writ appeal for fine} disposal, In Vi€t\?V of the made at the hands of the Eearne_<i»AA»<?Q:1ns;eVI"yfeieftne' _ while disposing of Writ Appeej 'S3:i'£11}"eA:;:;ise . adjudicate en the meritsV'TVof._V the.'-daim by appellant herein in his eapae:i't;r:_ the ._§g;,g_ﬁ::¢§ne: in WP No.10793/11.

3. The emerges from a Cissued on 01.08.2006 by responderit.unnil.ii}:ereinf'----:vne;rf:eIy;'§ Kaveri Neeravari Nigam Niyarnivfh'a'; for the appellant informs us, that 10 R'ten:iere ._{Vr%:ffe.::Jreee§.ve<:i in furtherance ef the aforeeiéted n<§::e,e:nx{';:1ng tenders dated 01.08.2008. The Ieeing the lowest tenderer; was granted the }é<)_:1:i5.:';:1e": Ear '.5§E'1'e execution of the eencerned Werke. in furA'thera:nee.:'~0Af the eentraet granted to the ajespelianfé, W'€3I"k T "'«.__ 'v:fas e.1*:v§e?usied 23:: him on 08.139200? The Works under 7":f*efe:*e_nee envisaged w0:'}~:s in the tune of Rs.7".'?8 emres. _ Since ienﬁers were inviied in 2036, whereass ihe eeniracté undey :*efe:'enee W33 eXe<:u{:eii in 2037 {afier Eagjse e5 i'}"§€}§€ then': gene }?€3Z:1f} gene apgéeiiani herein '$5213 ggrenieéi zzee eeiéaieiéez: in 'éhe eeeyie; 'ins: insiené: §:»3,e.f;:.:2sE ;>eeﬁé<>n sséande ;:<?E<e::<;:e:Eee:§§ge%€i 21%; the ?:::1ens:§e if ine :%ee§3{>:1de:§i;s. :3:Mm¢%eM;£f$}% W '*«w«-mo-we st 3

4. In terms ef the agreement entered into between the rivai parties, the entire construction be e»:::mp1eted by O?'.G1.2009. ' V V

5. It is the assertion of the 1é;'2m:'ieet».eetifrSe}?--t"Qi"ii,e_:11e 2 appeﬁant, that the work ontttthe pre";.ec€:: wa::§e'er::v:ne:§1eeM<:§ in October 2007. The appellantvtvtéeettilpieteti'ti§)¢?:> 9}' the entire works by Deeembe:f'*w.¢_ xvezttisttvv cempleted contemplated Having been satisfied Vx7ith;_"t}ié}.§\f0r1:st_ ec>:'1t1§>1e'te:ﬁ--:_bf;f...t££e' appellant, RS186 erore was E10,} to the appellant.

After 20% work? the officers of the of the reependentwerganisatien inepeeted {E16_:iVCI;kSA.'Iéf1 .D€C€fI1'D€I' 2007, whereupon it was 'tV"v.yea1ieeQg~.e4,{b3,a.Athe :*'ee§ﬁer:e1ents}§ that the deeigne' and the V'-eianse' assigned fer exec/utien of works eeﬁ--tem*;?&e.te.;jt under the notice inviting tenders dated needeﬁ tee be medified. The atereeaid ?V."iA::V€er:feattien was furnéeheé by the reepeedeete to the VA zrgﬁpelietzii, 'N3§1€T€tE}3{}EL the epgeéizmt eestztd {get take up any V f::z*the§" e:x:ee::ti{3e; er? ttée w<3:"E~: {.21tE;er tiéetéerifeee 2§}{Z%'?}, it ie aeeeﬁeei, that; the ap;}e~i;§zmt; e<:»;:t,§m:e<i te aéiireee :'eg:;re§?~;e:2tat/§€}::5% 'ﬁe the ti"t:?§%}3€}1":{§2E:'%'§3;?it§§ {"'if,i}'§'§"1§:"2€?'§':if§fE§§ with titze t"§':*s:e§ Y%3f§3i"€§%S§§f%EE'%',é?i'{€{éZ": §;,:1§:e€.E E§3,t2.2€§f;%'?9 :'eq:;:§ri%1g the m it."

6 respondents to furnish approved modified plans and designs. It is further the contention of the 1earned_.e_ounse1 for the appeiiant, that no decision in eonneetieht':§?ith'V.'t11e modiﬁed plans was Communicated to the a--p"pe1}s,n't:"t is atse the Contention of the 1earnec§"eeunsei_<'fo:f. j that there were electrical poles ahrj"evlheetrieal"lines-ji:<}eV»VVthe path of the building line, '£1-O. b€ fc-.0Vn:sti*i:eted the appeﬂant in the tehhhhirrsunder the contract' It is also the iearned Counsel for the appellant; were made by the V of the electrical poles and e:;e¢h£r:céi'gt%%_V f:':;.f[1:h¢ of the builehng hne, hoxxretretﬁ by the respondents even for retnm-'a1L(>f t'he_:Veiee'triea1A'ho1es and lines; the lapse at the hands of the respendents as .h'a%zeV he'ejn:Fi'eeorded In the foregoing paragraph, it is the snhn:§.ssi:Qn ef the learned eeunset for the appeﬁante that f"'thet""t.in1e te exeeute ané eerhpiete the smjectt (namely, $§?".{}l,2i3{}9} expireﬁ wit.het:t any §L:1i'*§L§3€£" aetien at the hanés sf the resgsndeizt/s.

Z9'. '{>esg;§t:e the §'2:<::t; that the ;;e::*§;<;s§ 2:}? e<;>nt:"aeti has e2:n':e the zfin ens; es {}?tér§§§a2Eé'}{Za£ it is <::<:>::%:,§;:~m',§::;:; ef the ;;:3;,%@;;

8"/K/K, 7 learned Counsel for the appeliant, that the 1*espQndents furnished modified/amended platzs to the Oh O6.'€)3t2OC>9 and required him to start the we:f§§s him without any further delay. 1t';»ie..the . learned eounsei for the appe1Iantip;".th7f.tt"en'aeveetthf from December 2007 inhforttieti' that the designs neerized fn§)(:Iit"'ieé:i}v,.,, was not blameworthy of the (when he was eventually prex.riei;e:d designs}. For the t_c»'W2GO9, the appellant iief the "eost at the rate of 14%. A formalhrepfeeehtettehmihvvh'this behalf was made by the appeHant..V_en 1;E§..O5,'2QG--9 f'Consequent upon the demand made' "by the'-»Aetp51§e11e.nt' for escalation of costs, Various tvere held between the appellant and the theluding one an 24.08.2009 and another on e2.{>2.2ete;7"t In the meeting held on 02.92.2913 a Veemupreiihise was arrived at between the rive} parties, in Be _' fyétieh ate? the appeﬁaht eeneedezi that he Weulcé net press V' "hie demaeé fez' esealetéeh of eestis at the rate ef 1%i?'{:». It is a§:~3e: 21::i:E§r:{>v;Eeti§.§{e3e1 that the aepeﬁaht agreed tie e:><eet:te the %,--ver§<: 2&2'; 7i5Es'%: it-'fee thzm the éiit/tIi""i""{'/E"tt",, 8s::*the<:E;%.,;te 2:}? Rest/ee, Etzeséhgg t:::;>:*:t;::t"s:_):'his+;:;é{t wit;h the §<§::2§'§!§\3{:EE«§.f:§€;::§/'}f,.§;3§ em G§it{}2t§{}Tt8.; the i~3Wal%;?2l;wL?m §:W .W.w.mw.w.W we 8 appellant addressed a formal Comniunieatien.l:'*1:~;5~._the respondents on 09.02.2010, conceding that.A"'l1e' press his demand ef escalation of eosfts l'z4c_§»'5':>§',' . and also, acknewledging that"zhe.'_AlWotiidr --e»>;ee':'{t€_:lAl:'l15he remaining Work at 1% less the .euxfre-::t'*..S'ehedule 'of Rates.

8. The factual pes:i't§Q11l__V Ilpar1*aVt'e'el'jvvklereinabove, only records the '::f_raVrisp'i:'-eid from the date of issuance tenders [dated 01.08.2006).

The same's'l'1aé::. ne5?:'lele\*a"nee Wlzaisoever to the Centroversy betweei) the p.a1':iles"W_hich came to be raised by the appellant . fiVli1_1§7._ \"'~.v%'f:il': Petition N0. lQ'?93/2019., and V. the_reaf1§e:*, f:,he.lif1sfa1f1t Writ Appeal bearing No/£036 / 201 l. to the learned counsel for the resp«0ncle:::s~'; Abasecl an the written undertaking given by the ll'""--..vVV"ap;::ella11§ an 09.02.2619, Ehe appellant was required to a "supplemental agreemenf'. A draft of the _M'_'s§upplemen:al agreemerw' was given te else appellaet er; Q%.®3l2CElG. 'l'l3ereal"€,e§; a <:e:)a;a:u;13ix::at3ie;z atlaieﬁ 31 §.{}k2{}}~{:§ aegis §ssa,e{: 'la the a§;pella:':: 31:3 exeaiaie 'she aferesaiel *'s'ag3ple::zesai,a.§ a§§:'ee::':<::eé;". lﬁespﬁie See lgigsse ef almesé é;la3"e<e §:':<}:zi:§es slmte §:.::'§";§sl:ii'1;3; ef "s:2g3§3l<e::'2e::§al Q '°3'3«L%@ae€»&'k.»~ﬁ;*€w 'SM/km k E;

% 9 agreement." to the appellant, he had still not €X€C};Ef;€d the same. It is the contention of the learned c'e€;ris_e;'i..A<fQr respondent meal to 4, that large xlumber 4a'"f:.i'L:'f1sif':.h'ef eemmunicatiens were addressed f_:e..the a;_3f>e§£aﬁ: fa Véegsgeefati': 1 the "supplemental agreement" bat, ta do so. Left with no a1terr1a":1';}?e,..VtheA'i:ﬁpu_g1é:eAe}{._jozciet'; 20.08.2010 came to be 'ehe Contract executed by respondere{"}1QA3--'_ﬁ i'£:._'§&5;iA'th_pbthe alapeﬂant. T he aforesaid order be assailed by the appe}1aI1"t{ /11. During the pendeacy' eetition, a fresh notice appellant was fully aware of the respond to the instant notice igiviting _f;en.der'sV." If": furtherance of the determination "«§§fh€fe%I; the appeﬁant did not participate, "res§§_ef1cief~:.:_ came ta be identified as the Eowest 'geriiereaﬁ ~fe'r the award ef the remaining contract in 'q;uestie11-.1' It is in the aforesaid eireumstanees, that the ,"a4_;V:};3e1Ai2a1*:, appreaehed this Court 'fer direeiieas. E8. 35; me ifeeagaed eeder dates: f}5:§4.2GiE§ a §ea:"::<:«:§ Siege Jzzdge ea'? ééaés C{;:.a'{ {ﬁe-eiined ﬁe pass any :m;ez'*ia"i d§;*e{:%Eisaf:1s so as; $19 g;>§*a%.;ee'éi the {E§§:':§iEE1 <2? Ifhe :é:_;eg,:é::EEa§:§:. E}::z:*i§*:§; %.1he. }3§"i1€§§'éE€;3},»' <3? Eh-:3 p§e<%e%e£§s§j:}gs 2:: *{E3e ii E 3;?

es?

§ ME' wmvmmaomsmwa 10 .-

writ petition filed by him, the appellant appr0_aCh-e§i~._vthis court by filing the instants Writ Through the instant order? with the _<_:0nseht" 1'_'e.am_é<i. E eounsei for the rival parties Writ Pettttioﬁ ﬁes. Writ Appeal 130.4038 X 1 1, aret.h'e~ir_1g ceiiectixreht Of; . L'

11. The snly question xi?hj_eh_Vsrise~s cehsideratien at our hands is, Juéﬁfiéd for tha respondents 1 ts 4 given to the appellant; trrép:t):gfi:e:c:::1"'ti:"d.e.t:dated 20.08.2010? In so far st} the matter is concerned, learnec1V"e§jL11sis}.e1 eesftientiehtvtyénos. 1 to 4 states the responrtehts 0f the entire respensibﬂity for 1:<;>;:1»exe'eutio:1'V-.<::¥f_th?e contract at the hands of the for dhev-------31* other reason including the non» %fmé;1;::ea%::.§:~;i'ofme amending/medified plan from December 02.32.2016. But thereafter the action thesppeiiant has been such, that the autherities were '~:tj§eftt"v:fith :10 Choice but to rescind the contract executed ' wgitth him? ans ts award the 1*ema:r2:r:g,{ "\?€{)f'1{S to respemdezzt 123.5. &e<:::2:*::ﬁ::g to the Eeameei céiszlhset :*eprese::ti:sg E§ffS§§§{Z%i1§€:}t1 mes, E is 2:33} the a}at/stszaéiztg issues with the Eiptpﬁﬁéiiéi, {:?2m":::: ta: set/tieté ténréiig the {':€)t£:"S€ sf the meeté::§>;s heiei an {Z'I2.Q2'2{'2E®t E33: '€€£'hi{?h time; the £4 tiw & I Wvrmtawxwnwwnnmg, 11 --_ modified/amending plans were handed _.__the appellant {on 08.03.2009). The appellant..t1h}i!;§.teifatIy' up his Claim for escalation of the eo_e4ts--V3;hei'Aatse,Va.g1*eed:'tok. execute the remaining partt ef the ACQh'tra(:t;Tat. leége' the Current Schedule of Ratesktzfte that the written agreement as' ~.;gtfore'ete{te':'i, Vﬂvzas eﬁieeiited by the appellant on OQ.O2.${Vh).1"0.--' works ceuld thereafter havefiétlhly Vthzevltappeltaxat, after he signed the :?'5:':vp'p?;e.thehta}. ;agree:hentTt."VA draft supplemental agreement éya:3__hande'd_Ve¥Jje1j 'te*th'e 'appellant on 04.03.2010 VV}fl€I'€€{LJft€I',' httrrtber of reminders, the a_ppe11a1f:tVV execute the "supplemental agreement"a.""§t:Vis.thet*efe'i5e, that the respondent nos. 1 to 4 . .,._we1"e ':i€ft'.XV§ih no eitterhative, but to terminate the contract tespohdeht nos, 1 to 4 with the appellant an "§f§{1~'E'he E'f3Sp(}ﬂS€ of the Eearned counsel for the }_aj5>pei},ant to the sehtary ebjeetton raised at the hands of the 1€fi1§T:€C§, eeuhset fer the f€tS§€}t1§€fT:'iS was, that inspite ef the esritlten ti'/{)v}'E3.E"I'2,'é1I}§,{i8;fii3§} addressee' h}? the epeeilent eh €3§t§2.2C?E{) §:;gx§iﬁ€3f=i'iZ§"€"§:3}. "§».§"§ié'?i"é?§'i:'i§ the gtepeitaht hate ;1g§:*c:%e<§ te ggéve: tip the e%::%::r:2m::i ef es{:.::1h:t:§<im ef eeete at tgttie ef §é§ih>., zfahti zatetx heté ;=3g:°s:ie:3t§ tee e:x:e£;::,;:te the tee':ai;*:§:<tg;' work at 1% less than the Current Schedule ..sf. rival parties were elltertainingg different Views«..__lAee{:lrclihg the the learned Counsel for the ap;;;ella'r:t.&_ lliaclli'. agreeci 'Le ezxieeute remaining , current Schedule of Rates rime sf execution of the "s:;s};.)plerr:-e'::l:red-- ll"argreerrien{'i}: whereas, respondent nos. l to that the works he executed at 1%' thiéihl 'Rates prevalent at the time of elgreement in 2007'.

tl1e_lllli}*eraeity of the eontentien advanced -at.tlgef..ha:1ClsA""::»f the learned eounsel for the appella:rt,'w..elsllhels. in the feregemg paragraphs, woulsjl "dete1*mlne;llorrwhose shoulder the fault lies. In lerclle'r. slixgportllllhlls elaimr that the instant grievance rgleecl by the learneé counsel for the appellant hale}-.__nev_.~suli§s'tanee, it was asserted, at the hands of the lH,learr1ed_ eiaunsel for the respenderztsg that ihe Schedule of at the rime when Ehe eriginal rterrtraet was executes is? the year 21$??? , rerrzairzed 1if121lll£'3'f'€?ﬁ fer 'the year 2§G8~G9, else? fer the year ZSQQEQ. it S%}b§'i"}i'{l{%Ci 5122:: {he S§=::lhe<le;le es? Rzzies aéarrze re he zzlrereé ﬁler the fiersi; rtirne {afr/er 'she éftxﬁitziliiﬁié el" <:::sr:i';re<:i:/ sh §§.2{}{}?f§ err §§»S§.2QI£& sséélr ii; is the <::<:s::r:::::'{iie:": ef i;he learrreil £§i€§:iE'1:f:'=§€:"'§ fer élthe , '""~ *t%J'i~?4'»':,'§,,6;/g"t} ﬁitrt ms};

't V. 13 respondents, that there could be no dispute about the fact that the schedule of rates, as was prevaient an when the appellant executed a written e0mpr_eh1is'e._t_he responcients (and agreed to exeeu:tee_the _-"vé"e':*}£.?§".at'» Eessn than the current Schedule of Rates} the"s_:3;rne,:"s:s:'was prevalent when the e0ntraet»t\2v,gK1s en'trn'sted 'the'.apjpeYian't, on 08.10.2007. The instant poshitmgfx étsseirted at the hands of the learned namely, that the schedule Qf any change whatsoever is not disputed v..ti1e"--:t:1earned eounsei for the appe1I2j.'n't';V'i'}th;'sv atevhsntisfied, that the grievance, now sohght the hands of the appellant is enly _vInan'ipu:IatieI1AAgnhhfetrietve the lost ground, VVhen the g-ajve en"""u{ndertak;ing to the respondent not to V'e--pfessCiernet:1d for escalation at the rate ef 149% and alse.,_ to execute the eenttetet at 1% iess than the "<:nr1'ent,__seheeiu1e of rates, the respendents kept pressing} 2e ('3) :;«~:eeute%,; 3: supplements} agreements' A eireft at ..snpp1en1et:1t:ni aggreeznent: was f€;rn1ai1:s; eeznniunieetted to the V apgaeitant en £§3;9C!I3=2GE{}t A stthseqnent eezntnttnieetten ﬁat/eat ?--§.€}?f}.2:§E€2 'W218 issneit te:q:/siting the ztpeettset. tie é'_X€':{T',§«.§?§,i:§ the sugggéenztrétsttﬁ 2';;;T:'et%:§'t:;%:':tt. A in:j;{{:é neznher et 14 coinmunications were alse addressed by the further respondents to the appellants to execute the suppkgmentai agreement. It is only when the appellant did n§t.--V:.eXe'::A'ute the supplemental agreement, that the "

dated 28.08.2010 came to be:-'p":;1s--sed;'.¢' j contractual agreement entereii Kiiito " ,betwee:i"~..ViV'the respondents i to 4 and the 1910» fault can be found wi.th_respehtienif'-»;1f3s. 'Mtg; for having passed the order dates the appeﬂant I future terms and having hiiI1se1f"e;ei:epted§iti': \>£?1"i'ti3§ig Conditions of "'eQritifae't.,».. V:L,h':'--Qugh his Communication dated "{;§iiifieXute¥D)., failed to execute the suppietiiefitai .-in compliance with his own undertamng; ffiius xtivextfedt we are also satisfied, that the

-' v 'e1ijder'V<i:i'teei 20.08.2010 was wheiiy justified and J 's.i'E:iiitife;:rSz:e~Aeeerdingiy, W}? No. 10793/11 is iiéibie to be éis£::issed_s',ii{d the same is hereby dismissed. We are else "*sstiisi"i.evd.!' that the deniai of the interim prayer made by the _i'--et§>~pe'§1ar§t {by the i€§ii'Ii€§ Single Judge thresgh the ....i-f."§Iip§);gi"i€3C§ side? zjsteé ®EL€}<<i.2®i 1} was else justified. Writ Repeat? searing Neéiﬁﬁef 1 ii is a<:s:ée:>:*{tirig;§,i§;: siss iiabie te %:>e zegeetietii ?:{?ii{}i'(i§iE§1;i§?, {§iif3l'E"i§S$i'f{§, E'¢1ise:.§»i§eiti 2':§:"}§}ii{Tf€i§§:£}i'if§i- ;%i§}§i:I€§}{§.£3§i iii} the gtiséwe 31213:: zmsitit §:i§}§}€;'32'§ {ﬁe est §I§t};i"§/'§'v'€ §::vr 15 censideration on account of the fact, that main writ appeal has been dismissed on merits.

ii}. As of new, fresh notice inviting 'tef1deriS?-<_ been issued by respondent nosgih §i_eap--an€ientVi' 230,5 having been shortiistedas 1<:{ur_eStV tende_:e'r,. we --fi11d"nQ justification in denying respéiaﬁent nos. -4*.iIi'VVgrantin'g the centraet to resporfdent r1€{5', any dth'er'pers0n of their choice in accordance wit'I'z'V1aw.;A._ V Eaaga :na':;:<: Y/'N '

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court