No-claim certificates do not automatically bar proven contractor claims for extra work and contractual dues.

Acceptance of a final bill under protest and execution of a no-due or no-claim certificate do not, by themselves, extinguish a contractor's genuine claim for extra work or other contractual dues when supported by oral and documentary evidence. The stated principle is that such discharge documents are not conclusive in every case, especially where surrounding circumstances indicate compulsion, protest, or an existing claim capable of proof. On the facts described, the trial court's item-wise assessment of evidence supported some claims and rejected others, and its decree was restored after the High Court's reversal was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether acceptance of the final bill under protest and the execution of a no due or no-claim certificate barred the contractor from maintaining claims for extra work, additional amounts and other dues supported by evidence.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the contractual clauses governing interim and final bills, and the contractor's acceptance of payment under protest, operated as an absolute bar to later claims. The Court held that such contractual stipulations and the mere acceptance of the final bill do not extinguish a genuine claim where the contractor asserts additional work, delayed payment or other contractual entitlements and substantiates them with acceptable oral and documentary evidence. The Court relied on the principle that a no due certificate, no-claim certificate or full and final discharge is not conclusive in every case, particularly where the surrounding circumstances show compulsion, protest or a live claim capable of proof. On the facts, the trial court had examined the evidence item-wise, accepted some claims and rejected others, and its findings were found to be well supported.

Conclusion: The contractor was not barred by estoppel or by acceptance of the final bill under protest from pursuing the proven claims, and the decree of the trial court was liable to be restored in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's reversal was set aside and the trial court's decree for the contractor was restored, resulting in success for the appellant on the substantive monetary claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Acceptance of a final bill, no due certificate or no-claim certificate does not, by itself, defeat a contractor's genuine claim for additional amounts when the claim is supported by evidence and the surrounding circumstances show that the discharge was not conclusive of all liabilities.

---