Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. The learned Tribunal held that the petitioner failed to complete the work due to rates of concrete work being not sanctioned as demanded by the petitioner. We also hold that non completion of work was due to petitioner's own faults and breaches and respondents are not responsible for the delay in doing the work. We have also seen that the petitioner has claimed loss of infructuous overheads and loss of profit on percentage basis. The documents submitted by the petitioner were denied by the respondents and proved by the affidavit of attorney of the firm. We have seen that these documents and articles do not specify either any loss of infructuous overheads and loss of profit pertaining to this work. Photo copy of the income tax returns are of Shri Arjun Kumar and not of the firm. The NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:60886 8 CR-67-2004 petitioner has not submitted any details of either loss of profit or loss of overheads pertaining to this work through the documents. The petitioner's attorney Shri Arjun Kumar has also accepted this in para 34 and 36 while giving oral evidence. The petitioner has claimed loss of infructuous overheads and loss of profit on percentage basis only. They calculated loss of overheads expenses on percentage basis as per Schedule I and Loss of profit on percentage basis as per schedule II.

15. Learned tribunal reached the conclusion in para no. 15.3 of the award that the respondents are not responsible for delay in execution of the work and on that basis held that the petitioner is not entitled to get loss of infructuous overhead charges and loss of profit as claimed by him. Since the claims of the petitioner are devoid of any merit hence the tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner of infructuous overheads and loss of profit.