Contractor payment cannot be withheld for lack of internal certification when no performance defect is shown and approval duty lies with payer.

A contracting party cannot withhold proved dues merely because its joint venture partner did not certify the bills or because electrical inspector approval was not obtained, where the evidence shows no contemporaneous complaint, defect, shortage, or other deficiency in performance. The court treated inspection and approval as the payer's responsibility under Rule 63 of the Electricity Rules, 1956, and held that an internal arrangement with a third party could not defeat the contractor's right to payment. TDS deduction was not decisive on its own, but the overall evidence still established liability. The appeal failed, and the decree for recovery with interest was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was justified in withholding the respondent's payment on the ground that the work was not certified by the appellant's joint venture partner and that electrical inspector approval had not been obtained, and whether the respondent was entitled to recover the balance amount with interest.

Analysis: The documents and evidence showed no genuine dispute about the execution of the work or the bills raised. The appellant's witnesses admitted deduction of TDS on the full billed amount, deposit of inspection fees, and absence of any contemporaneous complaint or document showing deficiency, shortage, or watch and ward retention. Rule 63 of the Electricity Rules, 1956 was relied upon to show that inspection and approval were matters within the appellant's responsibility, not the contractor's. The internal arrangement between the appellant and its joint venture partner could not be used to deprive the respondent of payment in the absence of proof of any defect in performance. The discussion on TDS also showed that deduction by itself was not decisive, but the overall evidence still established liability.

Conclusion: The appellant had no lawful basis to withhold the outstanding contractual amount, and the decree in favour of the respondent was .

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the trial court's decree for recovery with interest was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A contracting party cannot withhold admitted or otherwise proved dues merely because a third party under an internal arrangement has not certified the bills, when no deficiency in performance is shown and the obligation to secure inspection or approval lies with the payer.

---