Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. Learned senior Counsel for the petitioner submit that the various extensions of time granted by the respondent were putatively to mitigate the hardships faced by the petitioner on account of the hindrances and obstructions at the site of construction. It is submitted that the respondent randomly kept on granting extensions of time to the petitioner without ever being able to completely clear the hindrances from the site of construction. It is the case of the petitioner that owing to the uncertainty prevailing in the time taken by the respondent in clearing the hindrances and obstructions from the site of construction, the petitioner proposed to introduce the concept of 'Zero Date', whereby a deadline was to be assigned to the respondent within which the respondent was obliged to clear all hindrances from the site of construction. Explaining the significance of the concept of Zero Date, learned senior Counsel submit that it was envisioned by the petitioner that the date on which the respondent managed to clear all hindrances from the site of construction was to be reckoned as the Zero Date, and any extension sought by the petitioner pursuant to the Zero Date was to be granted to the petitioner as a matter of right so as to enable it complete the work of construction expeditiously. Learned senior Counsel for the petitioner have placed on record the letter dated 13.7.2006 wherein the petitioner had proposed 1.10.2006 as the Zero Date for the respondent to clear the hindrances from the site of construction. It is the case of the petitioner that not only did the respondent blindly turn down the petitioner's request for having 1.10.2006 as the Zero Date, but even otherwise, the respondent has till date failed to provide a completely hindrance-free site, thereby impeding the petitioner from completing on time the work of construction stipulated under the contract dated 16.1.2002.

33. The present case has placed before this Court a complex juggernaut of conflicting averments clothed in cloaked facts and startling revelations, which, nevertheless, I propose to unravel in the manner hereunder:

Re : Slow Progress ? Hindrances Imbroglio.

34. Learned senior Counsel for the petitioner have vehemently argued that the dismal rate of progress exhibited by the petitioner and its eventual failure to complete the work of construction stipulated in the contract dated 16.1.2002 was squarely on account of the respondent's failure to remove the hindrances and obstructions besetting the site of construction. It is thus submitted that on account of the respondent having failed to remove the hindrances from the site of construction even after the expiry of the contract on 31.12.2005, the petitioner cannot be held liable for its inability to complete the work of construction stipulated under the contract dated 16.1.2002.

38. The respondent has further taken me through a series of letters wherein the Engineer, whilst monitoring the rate of the petitioner's progress in completing the work of construction, has acknowledged the respondent's efforts in progressively reducing the hindrances at the site of construction. A conjoint reading of all these letters, that is, the letters dated 3.2.2006, 28.4.2006, 6.7.2006 and 22.7.2006 clearly brings out how the hindrances at the site of construction were reduced by the respondent from 8.4 Km to 7.5 Km to 7 Km and finally to 4.5 Km. The Engineer's letter dated 22.7.2006 is particularly significant as it comprehensively brings out how the hindrances at the site of construction have been reduced to a mere 4.5 Km length in respect of Package 4 and 900 m length in respect of Package 5. A copy of the letter dated 22.7.2006 is reproduced thus:

64. In view of my aforesaid findings and observations, I have no hesitation in stating that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case which would entitle it to an injunction or invocation of the bank guarantees. It is the admitted position of both parties that the hindrances at the site of construction were of a variable nature and could not be removed by the respondent in one go. Nevertheless, the respondent managed to remove most of the hindrances thereby giving the petitioner little chance to complain. Despite most of the site being hindrance free, the petitioner could not expedite the work of construction and kept seeking extensions of time on one pretext or the other. The petitioner has completely failed to acknowledge the fact that the extensions approved by the respondent involved huge stakes for the respondent and thus were more in the nature of concessions a fortiorari making the petitioner liable to expedite the contract at the earliest. However, instead of expediting the work of construction, the petitioner has calculatively tried to arrogate to itself extensions of time as a matter of right by unilaterally introducing concepts like Zero Date. The petitioner's assertions that it was entitled to extensions of time and the invocation of Clauses 46.1 and 63.1 were wrong appear to me an after thought to wriggle out of its liabilities under the contract dated 16.1.2002. By surreptitiously repudiating the contract dated 16.1.2002 prior to its expulsion from the site of construction, the petitioner has tried to steal a march on the respondent. The petitioner also cannot claim that inasmuch as it has terminated the contract dated 16.1.2002, the bank guarantees furnished by it have become irrevocable. It is trite law that despite the principle contract and the bank guarantees being ejusdem negotii, the bank guarantee is an independent and self-contained contract enforceable on its own terms.