Principal and supplementary work claims substantiated by uncontested measurement sheets and admitted non-payment warrant recovery of dues.

The plaintiff was awarded a tender by the defendant on February 9, 2018, for the construction of a Bus Terminus and Market Complex in Bongaon, with a completion period of 365 days.

The plaintiff alleged substantial delays and breaches by the defendant, including failure to provide requisite drawings, failure to furnish reference points for site surveys, and non-payment of Running Account (RA) bills.

In July 2019, the defendant instructed the plaintiff to slow down work due to an alleged lack of funds.

The plaintiff ultimately filed a suit for recovery of dues under the 9th RA Bill, additional work, earnest money, security deposits, and damages.

The defendant failed to enter an appearance, and the matter was heard as an "Undefended Suit".

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the unpaid 9th Running Account Bill and charges for additional/supplementary work executed.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the refund of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Security Deposit.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for losses suffered due to extended stay and loss of profit.

The court applied the principles of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, regarding reciprocal promises and breach of contract.

Specifically, it looked at Clause 7 and 8 of the Conditions of Contract, which mandate monthly payments for work executed and establish the finality of measurements if not disputed by the Engineer-in-charge.

It also applied Clause 28 of the Conditions of Contract, which governs the payment and rate analysis for "supplementary" or "extra" items of work not stipulated in the original bill of quantities.

The court found that the plaintiff successfully proved the execution of work through uncontroverted evidence, including the 9th RA Bill [Exhibit-N] and the cost sheet for additional work [Exhibit-O].

Under Clauses 7 and 8, since the defendant’s Engineer-in-charge did not dispute the measurements or the bill, the claims remained valid.

Furthermore, the court noted the defendant’s letter dated August 29, 2020, which admitted the pendency of one bill due to "lack of funds," thereby acting as an admission of liability.

Regarding the security deposit and EMD, the court observed that the contract was terminated without any evidence of forfeiture by the defendant, making these sums refundable.

However, the court found the plaintiff's evidence insufficient to prove the quantified damages for loss of profit and extended stay under Claim No. 4.

It held that the plaintiff proved its case for the recovery of liquidated dues but failed to prove the claim for unliquidated damages.

The court decreed a sum of Rs. 1,87,99,874.08 in favor of the plaintiff, comprising the 9th RA Bill (Rs. 39,09,330.24), supplementary work (Rs. 62,18,386.84), Security Deposit (Rs. 45,59,116), and EMD (Rs. 41,13,041).

Simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum was awarded from the date of filing the suit until realization.