Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is further pleaded that since the final bill was not paid to the satisfaction of the plaintiff. The plaintiff company tried to resolve the dispute amicably on many occasions by writing and oral submission with the defendants, but in vain. The clause No.23.1 of the Special Conditions of Contract as mentioned in the tender, the defendants are illegally invoking against the plaintiff. It reads - "The contractor has to obtain necessary statutory approval / permission if required, for excavating murram from the selected source, which has to be approved by the IOC. Any payments / royalties in this regards shall be on account of a Contractor and necessary documents / receipts have to be submitted to IOC. Excavation of murram was to be obtained only when it was required. The murram if not procured from the Govt., lease / sources and procured from private sources, the question of submission of royalty receipts did not arise. The defendants had never complained of non completion of work by murram filling as per the contract between the plaintiff company and the defendants. The rate of royalty per CUM (Cubic Meter) was also not mentioned in the work order. The plaintiff company clarifies that - as per the trade practice and the tender documents, the defendants, the rate of royalty for CUM quantity is mentioned in the tender / work order. The same is considered to prepare estimate and also for bidders, if the same was to be factored in by them for quoting prices.

It is further pleaded that all the samples of the murram used in the work as produced from the private sources for completion of the work, the said samples were approved by the defendants after ascertaining the procured earth sample was from open market and the same was to be used for completion of the work. The defendant's site Engineers were clearly informed by the plaintiff that there was no royalty applicable on such procurements. The defendants never mentioned the source of supply in the requisition Form for sending the sample of soil to the laboratory for the test. The Engineers of the defendants gave nod for the work based on these facts. The murram obtained from the private sources was first tested, i.e. the same of murram was taken by the defendants brought from the open market by the plaintiff company and sent to the authorized department of the defendants and test was conducted of the said murram. Only if the department felt the quality of murram was good, the defendants would allow the plaintiff company to use the murram in filling the earth.

19. The disputed facts are, the defendants are demanding the documents pertaining to payment of royalty for supply of murram. There are several letter correspondence between the parties. The say of the plaintiff is that, it has arranged and supplied the murram from the outsiders and supplied the same to the defendants. The question of payment of royalty does not arise, since the plaintiff had not taken murram from the Govt. It is also submitted on behalf of the defendants that they have withhold the amount payable to the plaintiff relating to royalty.

ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
PW1 Sanjiv Dixit List of documents marked for the plaintiff:
Original of schedule rates including SCC and GCC Ex.P1 issued by IOC referred to as document No.2 in the plaint Copy of Testing of Murram referred to as document Ex.P2 No.3 in the plaint Copy of Test report of Murram referred to as document Ex.P3 No.4 in the plaint Copy of approval of Murram referred to as document Ex.P4 No.5 in the plaint Ex.P5 Copy of form of contract referred to as document No.7 Ex.P6 C/c of CMP No.127/2015 referred to as document No.8 C/c of the Review Petition in 205/2016 referred to as Ex.P7 document No.9 in the plaint C/c of the CMP No.127/2015 referred to as document Ex.P8 No.10 Ex.P9 Reply by IOCL referred to as document No.12 Ex.P10 Reply given by IOC referred to as document No.14 Copy of reply given by IOC referred to as document Ex.P11 No.16 Copy of the reply given by IOC referred to as document Ex.P12 No.19 Copy of the reply given by the IOC referred to as Ex.P13 document No.21 C/c of the report given by DLSA, Bengaluru in PIM Ex.P14 No.319/2023 referred to as document No.22 Ex.P15 Copy of the indemnity bond dated 28.08.2014 Ex.P16 Letter of acceptance dated 09.10.2013 Ex.P17 Email communication dated 12.05.2015 Ex.P18 Email communication dated 29.05.2023 Ex.P19 Certificate U/Sec.65B of the Evidence of the Act List of witnesses examined for the defendants: