Law: Contract Act (IX of 1812)

Section: 19,20,21,22

Law: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)

Section: 20

  Contract Act (IX of 1812)-----   ----, Ss. 19, 20, 21 & 22'-Karachi Port Trust is statutory body and governed by Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886 and Bye-laws-Contract of high valuation can be made with consent of Board-Board giving consent upon basis of mistake of question of fact-No valid contract-Application under S. 20 of Arbitration Act (X of 1940), by contractor in such circumstances not maintainable.   Date of hearing: 25th May 1965.   JUDGMENT   This is an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act by Syed Ghousuddin Ahmed who had submitted a tender to the K. P. T. in respect of a certain work for which tenders had been invited. The tenders were opened on 12-5-64 and it was found that the tender of the applicant Ghousuddin Ahmed was substantially lower than others. The Deputy Chief Engineer then wrote to the contractor on 3-6-64 and in para. 3 of that letter he pointedly asked the contractor to examine clauses 6, 8, 9 and 17 of the specifications and state expressly whether he was agreeable to them. His attention was particularly invited to the method of measurement which, according to the specification, would be based on the cross sectional area calculated from the levels of the ground taken jointly before starting the work and the finished levels of the items concerned without taking into account the sinkage and penetration of stones in the ground and change of levels of the ground during the course of work after the first joint measurements of the levels of the ground taken before the start of work. It is plain that this was a very important part of the terms contained in the specification and it was for this reason that the Dy. Chief Engineer attempted to make sure from the contractor that he had fully understood these terms and was agreeable to them. The contractor wrote back on 5th June 1964, and the letter which now appears on record and about which the allegation of the Karachi Port Trust is that this letter has been replaced as against the original letter, sets out the following statement in para. 3:-   "We have seen clauses 6, 8, 9 and 1 7 and are not agreeable to the same. Payment for the…