Bangalore District Court M/S Karnataka State Seeds vs M/S Saurabh Air Conditioners on 9 October, 2015 IN THE COURT OF THE XXXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 14), BANGALORE CITY. PRESENT: Sri G.S.REVANKAR, B.Com., LL.B. (Spl.), XXXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE CITY DATED THIS THE DAY OF 09th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015 O.S.No.2878/1995 Plaintiff/s: M/s Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Limited, "Beeja Bhavan", Bellary Road, Hebbal, Bangalore 34. Represented by its Managing Director Sri Rajanna (By Sri V.N.Satyanarayana, Advocate) /VS/ Defendant/s: M/s Saurabh Air Conditioners, No.25, D.I.R. Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore 10. Represented by its Manager (By M/s Tomy Sebastian Associates) Date of Institution of the suit 30.06.1995 Nature of suit Recovery of money Date of commencement of 29.11.2011 recording of evidence. Date on which Judgment 09.10.2015 was pronounced 2 O.S.NO.2878/1995 Total Duration. Years Months Days 10 03 09 JUDGMENT The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of sum of Rs.1,78,500/ with interest @ 21 % p.a. from the date of suit till its realisation. 2. The facts of the case of the plaintiffs are as follows: It is contended that the plaintiff is a Government of Karnataka undertaking called for tenders for the purpose of Air Conditioning the Board room, Managing Director's Chamber at Head Office, complex of the plaintiff corporation at Bangalore. It is contended that the tender of the defendant was accepted and work order was issued dated 14.05.1992. It is contended that the work order comprised of installing eight unit each of 1.50 TR split air conditioning with sound proofing to windows including commissioning and erection and the said tender was for Rs.4,20,160/. It is also contended that an agreement was also entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 22.05.1992. It is also contended that as per the terms and conditions, 60 % of the total cost of the work was entrusted to the defendant, 3 O.S.NO.2878/1995 but he did not commence the work and pressurized for payment of second installment also. It is also contended that in spite of payment of Rs.3,49,440/, the defendant has not installed the work. It is also contended that the defendant after inordinate delay, managed to commence the work and installed only six units out of eight units, that too in an unsatisfactory and incomplete manner and left the same in lurch. The plaintiff has further contended that they have issued letter to terminate the agreement, for that the defendant sought for extension of time to complete the work. The plaintiff has further contended that since there was inordinate delay on the part of the defendant and there was urgency to complete the work, they have cancelled the contract by issuing a letter dated 05.03.1994. So far as the sound proofing to the board room item and they have decided to get same departmentally in view of the urgency. It is also contended that despite of all the developments, the defendant failed and neglected to complete the work taken up by erecting and commissioning the system, so, they have issued a letter dated 25.03.1994 requesting the defendant to be present in the office on 31.03.1994 for final 4 O.S.NO.2878/1995 settlement, failing which, the contract in regard to balance pending work would also be terminated and that the same could be entrusted to third agency and the additional expenditure incurred, if any, would be recovered from the defendant. It is also contended that the defendant vide his letter dated 31.03.1994, again requested for extension of time. Further it is contended that the defendant was requested at least to complete the work of erecting and commissioning as the was done in an incomplete and unsatisfactory manner. The defendant in the guese of replacing the existing system with higher capacity one, dismantled several subsystems like compressors, electrical fixtures, motors, etc., and taken away and are yet to replace the same. Further it is contended that the plaintiff decided to terminate the agency by its letter dated 0607/07/1994 and requested the defendant to be present in the plaintiff's office on 15.07.1994 for taking inventory of works so far as executed by t