9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red, installed and commis-sioned four number passenger lifts in the office complex at Kanpur of the Respondent's client, namely, U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. (UPSIDC). A formal contract dated 16-7-1991 was executed between the petitioner and the NIDC. No fault with the lifts installed by the petitioner had been found but the total price was not paid. It has been averred that the total value of the Bills was Rs. 45,22,704 against which the payment released by NIDC was Rs. 32,77,980 leaving a balance of Rs. 12,44,724, in addition to the security deposit, thus aggregating to Rs. 15,53,372. A legal notice dated 6-3-1999 demanding this amount has been duly despatched. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently stressed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reads thus: "6.0 Terms of payment A. Supply part a.10 per cent of the contract value as down payment within 4 (four) weeks of signing of the agreement against bank guarantee for an equal amount valid till the completion of work. b.5% (five per cent) of the contract value on approval of all engineering drawings and specifications. c. 75% (seventy five per cent) of the contract value on receipt and joint inspection of stores at site on pro rata basis. d. Balance 10% of the contract value of supply part shall released after completion of erection and commissioning of equipment and materials supplied. B. Installation, testing and commissioning part a. 10% of the contract value as down payment within 4 (four) weeks of signing of the agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not NIDC. He has further relied on the petitioner's letter dated 14-12-1998 in which the UPSIDC was requested 'to send your clearance to NIDC for the release of security deposit amount of Rs. 3,76,400'. He has also relied on another letter of the petitioner dated 12-9-1998 in which the petitioner had earlier requested the UPSIDC to transfer funds to NIDC so that payment could be released to the petitioner. 7. The defence to the petition essentially is that the respondent was connected as a consultant of the UPSIDC and it was, therefore, not liable to make any payment to the petitioner. Mr. Kumar has clarified that final payments could not be made because UPSIDC did not release funds to the respondent. Quite inexplicably, Mr. Kumar has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by it from UPSIDC. The consequences of the respondent making payments to the petitioner must be sorted out between the respondent NIDC and its associate UPSIDC. There is no reason why the petitioner must suffer for the defaults of either of these parties. 8. It is then contended that there is no neglect in making payment and that there is a bona fide demand. Neither of these arguments are of substance. I have also failed to locate any clause in the agreement between the parties which stipulated that the respondent's obligation to make payment to the petitioner was contingent on funds being received by NIDC from UPSIDC. Reliance on Atul Drug House Ltd., In re [1971] 41 Comp. Cas. 352 (Guj.) is of no avail to the respondent. If it is to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
