Back
1996(4) Supreme 689
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. -Appellants
versus
N. Raju Reddiar & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7496 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23692 of 1995)
Decided on 24-4-1996
Held : Once a contract is reduced to writing, by operation of Section 91 of the Evidence Act it is not open to any of the parties to seek to prove the terms of the contract with reference to some oral or other documentary evidence to find out the intention of the parties. Under Section 92 of the Evidence Act where the written instrument appears to contain the whole terms of the contract then parties to the contract are not entitled to lead any oral evidence to ascertain the terms of the contract. It is only when the written contract does not contain the whole of the agreement between the parties and there is any ambiguity then oral evidence is permissible to prove the other conditions which also must not be inconsistent with the written contract. The case in hand has to be adjudged bearing in mind the aforesaid principles and the plaintiffs being conscious of this position along with the tender appended a letter and in that letter inserted certain terms by writing in ink to establish the case that the acceptance of the plaintiffs tender would tantamount to the acceptance to the terms contained in the letter in which there was insersion in writing to the effect that it was on multi slab basis. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the aforesaid stand of the Board appears to us to be wholly justified and at any rate we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the hand written portion in Exhibit P-1 was not there initially and has been inserted subsequently. The main basis of the plaintiffs case on which a multi slab rate was claimed therefore fails. The written agreement between the parties nowhere indicates that the rate to be paid to the plaintiffs was on multi slab basis and the terms and conditions of the written contract is not susceptible of such a construction. (Para 7)
Further held : That some of the Superintending Engineers passed some of the bills on multi slab basis and further when complaints were received and the matter was investigated into by vigilance to absolve the concerned officers from liability, a recommendation has been made to grant the rate on multi slab basis. But such a recommendation or such passing of bills on one count or multi slab basis cannot be construed to have conferred a right on the plaintiffs to get the payments on multi slab basis, until and unless it is proved by the plaintiff that the defendants agreed under the written contract to pay on multi slab basis. The plaintiffs have utterly failed to establish the same. 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. (Para 9)
JUDGMENT
Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 6.9.1995 in O.S.A. No. 112 of 1987. The plaintiffs who are the respondents in this appeal filed the suit on the original side of the High Court for recovery of a sum of Rs. 46,08,820/- together with interest at 18% per annum. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendants who are appellants in this appeal invited tenders for transportation of iron and steel materials including unloading, weighment and stocking from various stockyards of the suppliers to the destination stores during the period 1.9.1978 to 31.8.1979. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement the Plaintiff No. 1 submitted his tender on 12.7.1978 and along with tender submitted, a letter was also enclosed. This offer of the plaintiff was accepted and an agreement was entered into. In accordance with the agreement 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 tonnes 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.
3. The defendants in their written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint. The specific stand taken in the written statement was that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim multi slab basis and on the other hand they are entitled to single slab basis. It was stated that the multi slab rates had never been accepted and not covered by the agreement executed by the parties. It was also stated that on the basis of instructions from headquarters the Superintending Engineers have been passing the bills on single slab basis and the plaintiffs remained silent during the entire tenure of the contract period but raised this issue after the contract period was over. The defendant further averred that the plaintiffs have not delivered the materials correctly at some destinations. In reply to the aforesaid written statement the plaintiffs also filed a reply statement denying the allegations made in the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the plaint. On these pleadings the learned Single Judge framed three issues and on Issue No. 1 came to hold that the rates mentioned in Exhibit D-8 will have to be calculated on single slab basis and not on multi slab basis as contended by the plaintiffs. So far as the letter Exhibit P-1 dated 11.7.1978 which was enclosed to the tender form Exhibit P-2, the learned Single Judge negatived the contention of the defendant and came to hold that the words written in ink in Exhibit P-1 were there at the time of submission of the tender. The words were "I have quoted my rates for each slab and add for every extra one and part thereof". The plaintiffs case is essentially based on the aforesaid expression in the letter which was enclosed to the tender and which according to the plaintiffs was ultimately accepted. The learned Single Judge, however, construed the expression "for each slab" mentioned in Exhibit D-6 and came to hold that the tender was not on multi slab basis. The learned Judge also held tha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
