https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167604 A contractor could not be compelled under the original bridge contract to execute an extended viaduct work where the design change materially altered and expanded the project beyond the agreed scope; the contract clause allowing quantity variation did not justify forcing performance of a substantially different, separately tendered work. The resulting termination on that basis was unjustified. The existence of an arbitration clause did not bar writ jurisdiction in every case, and the High Court could entertain the writ where illegality or manifest injustice was alleged. The appeal by the railway authorities therefore failed and the High Court's judgment stood. en-us Mon, 18 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Nov 2015 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167604 A contractor could not be compelled under the original bridge contract to execute an extended viaduct work where the design change materially altered and expanded the project beyond the agreed scope; the contract clause allowing quantity variation did not justify forcing performance of a substantially different, separately tendered work. The resulting termination on that basis was unjustified. The existence of an arbitration clause did not bar writ jurisdiction in every case, and the High Court could entertain the writ where illegality or manifest injustice was alleged. The appeal by the railway authorities therefore failed and the High Court's judgment stood. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167604