1996 (4) TMI 445 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the conduct of some of Superintending Engineers in passing some of the bills on multi slab basis can be pleaded as an estopped against the defendants and can form the basis of plaintiffs' case? Held that - Appeal allowed. The answer to this question must be in the negative. A particular officer for various reasons may pass a bill on multi slab basis or a contractor may be able to get one of his bills passed at a rate other than the rate given in written contract in connivance with the passing authority. But when a dispute arises and the matter comes to court for adjudication no decree can be granted to the plaintiffs on that basis and the plaintiffs would be required to establish that the defendants in written contract agreed to grant the rate on multi slab basis. That has not been established in the case in hand. Therefore Division Bench of the High Court wholly erred in law in allowing the plaintiffs' appeal and granting the decree accepting plaintiffs' claim that the rate has to be paid on multi slab basis.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Basis of payment (single slab vs. multi slab).
2. Alleged shortages in material delivery.
3. Delay in payment of bills.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Basis of Payment (Single Slab vs. Multi Slab):
The primary issue revolved around whether the payment for transportation of materials was to be made on a single slab or multi slab basis. The plaintiffs argued that their tender was accepted on a multi slab basis, as indicated by a handwritten note in Exhibit P-1 attached to the tender. The defendants contended that the agreement was for a single slab basis, as stated in the written contract.

- Trial Court Findings: The Single Judge concluded that the rates should be calculated on a single slab basis, rejecting the plaintiffs' claim based on the handwritten note in Exhibit P-1. The judge found that the tender conditions were clear and supported a single slab basis, as indicated by Exhibit D-1 and other tender documents.

- Division Bench Findings: The Division Bench overturned the Single Judge's decision, interpreting the handwritten note in Exhibit P-1 and the conduct of the Superintending Engineer as supporting a multi slab basis. The Bench found the Single Judge's interpretation of "for each slab" erroneous and concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to multi slab rates.

- Supreme Court Findings: The Supreme Court found merit in the appellants' arguments, noting that the handwritten portion in Exhibit P-1 was likely a subsequent interpolation, as it lacked signatures and was dated before the tender submission. The Court emphasized that the written contract did not indicate a multi slab basis and that oral or other documentary evidence could not alter the written terms under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the contract was on a multi slab basis, setting aside the Division Bench's judgment and affirming the Single Judge's decision for a single slab basis.

2. Alleged Shortages in Material Delivery:
The defendants alleged that the plaintiffs had not delivered the materials correctly at some destinations.

- Trial Court Findings: The Single Judge found that the defendants had not established the alleged shortages, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs on this issue.

3. Delay in Payment of Bills:
There was a significant delay in the payment of bills, which the plaintiffs attributed to the defendants' misinterpretation of the contract terms.

- Trial Court Findings: The Single Judge acknowledged the delay in bill payments, attributing it to differences in contract interpretation and holding the defendants responsible for the delay. Consequently, the judge awarded the plaintiffs Rs. 9,31,157.63 with interest at 12% per annum from 1.1.1980 till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's judgment focused on the written terms of the contract, emphasizing that any modifications or interpretations must align with the written agreement. The Court found that the plaintiffs' claim for multi slab rates was unsupported by the contract and likely based on a subsequent interpolation. The judgment reaffirmed the Single Judge's decision for a single slab basis, dismissed the Division Bench's ruling, and upheld the awarded amount with specified interest. The issues of material shortages and payment delays were resolved in favor of the plaintiffs, with the defendants held accountable for the delay in settling bills.