AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Talapatra, J
Heard Mr. K Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel has submitted that in terms of the
original LOA, the work so assigned by the said LOA was completed on 27.10.2017. Thereafter, the respondents unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of the original LOA by the purported amended LOA which has been issued on 03.02.2020. By means of the amended LOA, a substantial part of the agreed rate has been deducted by the respondents.
Be that as it may, the pertinent question that falls for consideration of this court is whether after completing the works in terms of the original LOA, the respondents can unilaterally change the terms and whether that constitutes a dispute which can be decided by clause 4.64 of the original LOA.
Issue notice calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why rule should not be issued, as prayed for; and/or why such further and other order(s) should not be passed as to this Court may deem fit and proper.
Notice is made returnable on 21.03.2022.
Since Mr. B Majumder, learned Asst. SG appears and waives notice for the respondent No.4-Union of India, no formal notice is called for, in respect of this respondent.
Steps of service of notice on the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 be taken by the petitioner, within a week from today, by registered post with A/D.