Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. It is pertinent to note that the agreement in question comprising of various parts and the tender form alongwith the schedules were duly signed by both the parties. It is not disputed that the respondent-claimant had agreed to execute the work in question within the specified time mentioned in the memorandum. It further appears that though earlier the respondent had agreed to carry out the work as per the rate at 10.25% below the rates of Schedule 'G', subsequently as per the negotiations made between the parties, the tender of the respondent at the rate 7.7.% below the schedule 'G' amounting to Rs. 84,64,779/- was accepted, as per its order dated 31.1.86, and the respondent had agreed to complete the work under contract within 24 months excluding rainy season i.e. upto 14.2.1989. However, it appears that after accepting the payments of about 49 running bills, the respondent-claimant had informed the appellant vide the letter dated 29.8.88 that he did not intend to continue to execute the work any further. At this juncture, the said letter dated 29.8.88 deserves to be reproduced, which reads as under:-

21.Now as clearly transpiring from the evidence on the record, various documents like the tender form, the general rules and directions, the conditions of contract contained in the agreement, the schedules including the Schedule 'G', the general specifications and conditions of contract etc. were made part of the contract and all these documents were duly signed by the parties. The said documents were treated as part of the agreement entered into between the parties, whereas the BSR 1983 was a separate document containing schedule rates in general. The said document of BSR was neither signed by the parties nor treated as part of the agreement. Of course, it is not disputed by the appellant that the 'G' Schedule was prepared by the department on the basis of BSR and the analysis of rates. However as per Clause 47 of the agreement, the BSR was to be referred only in case of typographical or clerical error found in the 'G' Schedule. When the Schedule 'G' specifying the items and rates were provided to the contractor alongwith the tender, and when the negotiated tender of the claimant was accepted by the appellant at 7.7% below the 'G' Schedule amounting to Rs. 84,64,779/- there was no question of making payments to the respondent as per the BSR as sought to be done by the arbitrator. The rates mentioned in the BSR were never intended or treated as part of the agreement between the parties, nor the appellant had agreed to make payments as per the BSR.