https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753349 A recovery claim based on an alleged oral construction contract failed where the claimant could not prove the agreed terms, the rate for each item of work, or the actual expenditure by reliable evidence. The court treated the unilateral final bill as insufficient because it was unsigned, prepared after completion, and unsupported by original bills, vouchers, or proof of prevailing market rates. A compromise recorded in dishonoured cheque proceedings did not establish the genuineness of the civil claim. On that evidentiary basis, the decree for recovery could not be sustained and the suit was wrongly decreed below. en-us Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 May 2024 16:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753349 A recovery claim based on an alleged oral construction contract failed where the claimant could not prove the agreed terms, the rate for each item of work, or the actual expenditure by reliable evidence. The court treated the unilateral final bill as insufficient because it was unsigned, prepared after completion, and unsupported by original bills, vouchers, or proof of prevailing market rates. A compromise recorded in dishonoured cheque proceedings did not establish the genuineness of the civil claim. On that evidentiary basis, the decree for recovery could not be sustained and the suit was wrongly decreed below. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 05 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753349