The High Court · 2025

Appellan s/Defendants 1 to 4 AND

1. M/S. M.S. CONSTRUCTIONS, Registered Partnershilr 'irm, C-12 Madhuranagar, Hyderabad-38, Represented by its Me r aging Partner M Srinivasa Babu Son of Sambasiva Rao, aged 35 yrs.,

2. P. Kishan Son of not known to the Plaintiff, aged aboLt 55 years, presently working as Superintending Engineer, Cuddapah Circkr I & B Cuddapah, Residential Address: 1-8-726142121A, Padma Colony, \ allakunta, Hyderabad- 500 044. Re ; pondenUPlaintiff Respor denUDefendant No. 5 l.A. NO: 2 OF 2006(CCC AMP. NO: 31 OF 2006) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the : the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nrr stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the decree OS.No.501/01, dated 06/10/04 on the file of the Xlll Additic Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad including Execut ( ie., EP.No.9/05 on the file of the said Court, pending dispos i rcumstances stated in y be pleased To grant Lnd judgment made in ral Chief Judge, (Fast n Proceedings therein I of the main Appeal. The Advocate General Counsel for the Appellants : Counsel for the Respondent No,1 : SRI K. PRABHAKA I Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Not Necessary Fa rty The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT .- THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY C.C.C.A.No.68 OF 2005 AND C.C.C.A.No.10 OF 2006 COMMONJI]DGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 06.10.2004 in O.S.No.50l of 2001 rendered by the leamed XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad, the plaintifffiled C.C.C.A.No.68 of 2005 and defendant Nos.l to 4 filed C.C.C.A.No.10 of 2006.

2. Heard leamed counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The plaintiff-lws. M.S. Constructions, a registered civil construction firm filed a Suit against the Roads & Buildings Department, the then Govemment of Andhm Pradesh (presently the State olTelangana) and its officials (defendants) for declaration that the termination of the contract by defendant No.4 (Executive Engineer) under Clause 60(a) of the contract was illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and for recovery of Rs.64,43,22 7 I - with interest @ 24% per annum and other reliefs. The trial Court decreed the Suit o[ the plaintiff for Rs.l2,ll,956/- only against defendant Nos.l to 4 with interest @ 6%o per annum from the date of institution of the Suit and the Suit against defendant --- *,,,? i l ! I 2 AKS,J&IRKR,J )CCA.N,.6A of20o5 & batch No.5 was dismissed. Both the parties have preferred thest: rppeals challenging various findings. Both sides challenge findings of the tri rl Court on various factual and legal grounds, primarily conceming non-c(I rpletion of works, delays and alleged wrongful termination. PLEADINGS BEFORE TIIE TRIAL COURT

5. The plaintilPs version: il The plaintiff asserts that the departrnent faik d to provide unencumbered work site, specific alignments, and rLt cessary drawings at the outset. The site was said to be partly under the , ontrol of the Forest Department with access to men and materials rept:i ledly obstructed by tbrest officials and restricted working hours. 'fhe plaintiff recounted that on multiple occasionr; labourers were not ii) permitted entry to the site, materials transportation 'a ls limited to certain hours and forest officials even detained some ,,rorkmen requiring payment of a penalty. Numerous formal requesls were made to the department for clearances, approvals and permissic rs but the response was sporadic and inadequate. r,iy According to the plaintiff, these delays forced thtr r to keep resources idle, inflating operational costs and making timely completion irnpossible. Eventually, the contract was terminatec while a significant 3 AI<S,J&YRKR'J ccCA.No.66 oI2Oo5 & batch amount of certified work remained unpaid' The unpaid bills, wrongful deductions and the withholding of eamest money and security deposits led the plaintiff to seek declaratory relief and a decree for Rs.64,43,2271- plus interest and costs.

6. The defendantst version: D The defendants, in response' deny any lapses on their part or obstruction of the plaintiffs work. They assert that the plaintiff, a seasoned contractor had thoroughly inspected the site prior to bidding and was well aware of thejungleterrairr,rockboulders'andproximitytoforestlandsfactorsthat were expressly part of the contract's risks' ii) The defendants insist that payments were made in accordance with measured and certihed work and any delays or extra expenses stemmed from the plaintiffs failure to properly organize and execute the contract' The contract was terrninated only after granting muttiple extensions and opportunitiestofrnishthework,noneofwhichwereutilizedeffectively by the plaintiff. iilTheyfurtherarguethatcontractprovisionsentitledthedepartmentto withhold deposits and re-assign incomplete work to new contractors. Any claims for loss, escalation or damages are denigl as being contrary to the sigrred agreement. E t - 6 AI{S,J&VRKR,J CCCA.N'.68 oJ 2OOS & batch contractual terms, accepted at the time of signing, i:r :luded contingencies for these very risks. iv) Monetary claims for idle charges, escalation, or danri ges were denied due to lack oF cohtractual support and evidence of so[, departmental fault. The claims for interest on belated payments anrl refund of forfeited deposits were also dismissed. However, the Court de :reed Rs.12,11,956i- for certified, unpaid work with interest @ 6%o per a rnum and otherwise dismissed al[ further claims.

10. GROUNDSOFAPPEAL: Plaintiff's Appeal i) The plaintifT's central grievance is the trial Court's lailure to appreciate the real impact of departmental delays and to Lward damages for escalation, idle charges, and wrongful deductions. iiy The plaintiff asserts that the Court should hi ve recognized the department's uneven communication, continuous r;i .e hurdles, and late clearances as contract-breaking conduct warrantirrl full compensation and restorat ion o f deposits. Defendants' Cross-Appeal The department challenges even the limited decre:, asserting that no fufther sums were due after valid termination. l. reiterates that atl 7 AKS,J&VRI<R,J CCC-A.No.ff of 2OO5 & batch amounts paid were strictly under the contract terms, and that the non- completion was solely due to the plaintifls inefficiency and mismanagement. I1. MAIN POINTS FOR DECISION: t. Whether the trial Court mis-applied law or facts relating to delays and breach?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to additional amounts beyond the sum awarded including damages and interest?

3. Whether the conhactual termination under Clause 60(a) ol the contract precludes fu rther liability?

4. Whether the contract terms and risk allocation were properly interpreted by the lower Court?

12. LEGAL ANALYSIS AIYD REASONING: The Division Bench careflrlly considered the record, correspondence, and depositions from both sides. The court notes that where a Govemment contract specifically allocates risk and lays down dispute procedures, the obligations of both parties must be construed strictly as per the agreement and law goveming public contracts. Here, it is indisputable that the contractor had scoped the site, understood its challenges, and agreed to the stipulated terms and timeframes. The subsequent issuance of supplemental works and extensions were management prerogatives not contracfual waivers of the original risk allocation. The ptaintifls arguments for escalation, compensation and refund of deposits \ l l I I i I I I 8 AKS,JAVRKR,J T CCCA.N,.68 of 2OO5 & batch were not sustained by any contract clause or by proof that delays were entirely due to the department. T'he claim that forest or other o.l cial obstacles made work impossible was undermined by the admission that a s rbstantial part of the project was completed and by the lack of specific eviC :nce that remaining works could not proceed for reasons beyond the contractor s control. The Court also found that the department acted according to settled l :gal and contractual rights in terminating the contract after multiple extensiorr and in withholding deposits as per Clause 60(a) of the conhact. No evid,: rce of departmental arbitrariness, caprice or breach of natural justice was fourul. On the contrary, the pattem of repeated communications, opportunities and pay nents for completed work reflected a fair, if firm, administration of public works contracts.

13. CONCLUSION: The appeals from both the parties raise no groun,l that would justifu interference with the detailed, reasoned decision of the tria Court. The Court's findings on fact and law are supported by the evidence and no substantiat miscarriage of justice is apparent.

14. RESULT: In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. The trLr I Court Judgment is affrrmed and the plaintiff is eligible to recover Rs.12,ll,tt: 6/- with interest @ 9 AKS, J &, Ir'RKR, J CCCA.No.68 oJ 2OOS & batch 6%o per annum from the date of the Suit and all other claims are rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in tlrese appeals, shall stand closed. To, SO/. N SRIH DEPUry RE R //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to SRI K PRABHAKAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana loPUCl

4. Two CD Copies I I I I I l { I t I HIGH COURT DATED:0611012025 ---)a ,rrr'fr? r'/i" /a' Ti-lE SL-; ( _) 3 0 0ic 20fr l-1 -\lir ', JUDGMENT CCCA.No.68 of 2005 & CCGA.No.10 OF 2006 DISMISSTNG THE BOTH APPEALS q IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NOs. 68 oF 2005 & 10 0F 2006 CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No. 68 OF 2005: Between: M/S. M.S. CONSTRUCTIONS, Registered Partnership Madhuranagar, Hyderabad-38, Represented by its Managing Srinivasa Babu Son of Sambasiva Rao, aged 35 yrs. firm, C-12 Partner M. ANO APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF

1. SECRETARY TO GOW., Roads & Buildings Departmenl, Govt. of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Engineer-in-Chief, R & B (Roads), Errum Manzil, Hyderabad. 3. The Superintendng Engineer (R & B), Hyderabad Rural Circle, Balkampet, Hyderabad.

4. The Executive Engieer ( R & B), City Roads Division M.J. Road, Hyderabad

5. P.Kishan Son of not known to the Plaintiff, aged about 55 years, presently working as Superintending Engrneer, Cuddapah Circle R & B Cuddapah, Residential Address: 1-8-726142121A, Padma Colony, Nallakunta, Hyderabad-S0O 044. RRs 4 & 5 Dismissed for default vide C O., dt.8-6-2015 RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTSS Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., against the iudgment and decree passed in O.S.No.501 of 200'l and dated 06.10.2004 on the file of the Xlll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. n CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No. {O OF 2006: I Between: 1 SECRETARY TO GOW., Roads & Buildings Deper ment, Govt. of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Engineer-in-Chief, R & B (Roads), Errum Man;r , Hyderabad. 3 The Superintendng Engineer (R & B), Hyderabad t{ ral Circte, Balkampet, Hyderabad. 4 The Executive Engieer ( R & B), City Roads Divisicr M.J. Road, Hyderabad Appellan s/Defendants 1 to 4 AND M/S. M S. CONSTRUCTIONS, Registered Partnership rm, C-12 Madhuranagar, Hyderabad-38, Represented by its Ma r rging Partner M Srinivasa Babu Son of Sambasiva Rao, aged 35 yrs_, .... Rer pondenUplaintiff 2. P Kishan Son of not known to the Plaintifi, aged aboul ,5 years, presently workrng as Superintending Engineer, Cuddapah Circte I : & B Cuddapah, Residential Address: 1-8-726142121A, Padmd Colony, fJ ilakunta, Hyberabad- 500 044. - Respo -t lenUDefendant No. 5 Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C., agz i rst the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.501 of 2001 and dated 06.'10.2004 on the file of the Xlil Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ( )l{t)t:R: 'Ihcse appeals coming on for hearing and upon peru ins the srounds ol' appeal- rhe Judgment and Decree ofthe Lower Court and the materi r papers in the Pcrit ion arrtl rrpon hcaring thc arguments ofThe Advocate General for the app ol l(X)5 arrd lirr Respondents in CCC.A.No.l0 of 2006 and of Sri K. Ad\ ocrrtd firr Respondents in CCC.A.No.68 of 2005 and for the Re sp ('( ( .^ \o. I0 ol2006. :llants in CCCA.No.(r8 rabhakar Rao. rndents in I har this Court doth Order and Decree as follows: l. I har thc both appeals are be and hereby dismissed. / To 2 That the trial Court Judgnent is affrmed and the plaintiffis eligible to recover Rs'12,1 1,956/- with'ntmest @ 6% per annum from the date of the suit and all other claims are rejected.

3. That there shall be no order as to costs SD/. N SRI PUTY RE R cT9o^, oFF}LEA l. The XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, H 2. Two CD Copies. I I HIGH COURT DATED:0611012025 DECREE CCCA.No.68 of 2005 & CCCA.No.10 OF 2006 DISMISSING THE BOTH APPEALS ..r\{