https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278793 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. en-us Tue, 15 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Feb 2019 06:13:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278793 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278793