TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (4) TMI 445
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eement the plaintiff furnished a bank guarantee and deposited the necessary earnest money and commenced the work of transport of materials. It was further alleged that the plaintiffs carried the material and delivered the same at various destinations as per the direction given from time to time by the defendants. In all a total quantity of 1,73,78,821 metric tones of iron and steel were transported and the necessary bills were submitted in November, 1979. But the defendant instead of making the payments in accordance with the terms of the contract postponed the payment of the bills. It was averred in the plaint that the defendant agreed to pay on multi slab basis which is apparent from letter of the plaintiff attached to the tender submitted by him and that was also the trade practice. The plaintiff finally issued a notice on 28.3.1980 calling upon the defendants to settle the bills but the defendants replied on 7.5.1980 making several misleading averments. As the plaintiffs' bills were not settled, the suit was filed for recovery of the amount as already stated. The defendants in their written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint. The specific stand taken in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e rates in several tenders the learned Judge rejected the plaintiffs contention that the contract was on multi slab basis. Though the plaintiffs relied upon several recommendations of the Superintending Engineer but the learned Judge on consideration of the same came to hold that those recommendations will have to be rejected. It was also held that the terms and conditions of a contract have to be decided on its own and production of other contracts will not be of any help in deciding what are the terms of the present contract. He also held that the defendants failed to produce any other contemporarius contract which has been granted on multi slab basis. On issue No. 2 the learned Single Judge on consideration of entire evidence on record came to hold that the shortages alleged by the defendants had not been established. On Issue No. 3 the learned Single Judge came to hold that there is considerable delay in the matter of payment of bills though such delay had occasioned on account of difference in the interpretation of the terms of the contract and the delay is on the part of the defendants in settling the bills. With these conclusions and on calculating on single slab basis the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the terms and conditions of the contract particularly when the contract is a written one and consequently the Division Bench erred in law that the contract was on multi slab basis. We find sufficient force in each of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. Sivasubramanaim, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents repelling the contentions advanced by Mr. Reddy urged that there was no issue at all on the question as to whether hand written portion was subsequently inserted with the connivance of the officers of the Board and therefore it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the same at this stage. The learned counsel also contended that the very admission of DW-1, one of the witnesses of the defendants to the effect that after submission of the tender, discussions were made with the contractor and the contractor explicitly expressed to have the work done on multi slab basis, clinches the matter and it is not open for the defendants to give a go bye to the said admission of the witness. The learned counsel also urged that the defendants in fact accepted and acted on multi slab basis as is apparent from the lett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question was considered by the learned Trial Judge while discussing Issue No. 1 on the basis of evidence laid and the Trial Judge had given a finding in favour of the plaintiffs. The said finding, however, on the face of it appears to us to be wholly unsustainable. As has been stated earlier there was no signature either by the persons submitting the tender or by the persons receiving the same on the hand written portion of the letter. The learned Trial Judge had noticed that the certified copy which was issued by the Board on 11.7.1978 of the aforesaid letter clearly contains the hand written portion and therefore he came to the conclusion that the hand written portion was there at the time of submission of the tender. The tender itself was submitted on 12.7.1978 and we fail to understand how the Board could grant a certified copy of the letter on 11.7.1978 when the plaintiffs' case itself is that along with the tender he had appended the letter in question. On this ground alone it can be safely held that hand written portion in Exhibit P-1 was not there at the time of submission of the tender but was subsequently inserted obviously with the connivance of the officers of the Boar....