Find a Lawyer

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN versus JAVAID NASIM, SOLE PROPREITOR

The S 70 contractor's claim for additional work compensation was contracted by the contractor to repair the road in a specific area, with respect to the joint schedule for pricing for multiple premix carpeting. In order to do the work, the department was also given the additional work of Maher Kot for which no rate was paid, therefore, it was entitled to receive a certain amount of money for such additional work, however, no one was free to prove it. Failed to present evidence that in fact, the work was a seal coat as an extra work that was done by the department, the contractor was not acknowledged for any supplement slip, nor was the alleged for the seal coat. A separate order was issued to confirm the order; no entry was made in the measurement book; the additional work of Meherkot was only because another department, That the BetoManus Prix Carpeting Contract was also included in the order, the item for the seal coat for which the contractor was paid, there was no scope that the department was also told that the seal coat work 70, the delivery of the Contract Act 1872 is not enforceable. For its essential requirements, the person against whom the claim was made was not in a position to restore the work when he did not intend to pay for any work or compensation, then the contractor was missing, Failure to provide proof of alleged right to recover a certain amount of money for extra work done by him top civil advocates from Dandot lawyer