Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

64. It is also the case of the petitioner that it was required to expend huge monies in mobilization of its resources and machinery to Haryana based on the directions of the respondent despite the same being outside the scope of the Contract. The petitioner was directed to execute works in Rajasthan after completion of works in Haryana on account of emergency flood-like situation in Haryana. Having itself directed, the petitioner had to divert its resources i.e. equipment, machinery, personnel, etc. from the project site to Haryana because of the flood like situation, therefore, the petitioner could not be held responsible for any delay. It was also submitted that it is inconceivable as to how the respondent can make allegation of delay against the petitioner when the respondent itself NEUTRAL CITATION No.2023:DHC:3610 directed the petitioner to divert its resources from the project site to Haryana.