The court interpreted the terms and conditions of the contract and held that the defendant was bound to make payment of the bills within the stipulated time and that the plaintiff was justified in terminating the contract upon the defendant's failure to do so.

JUDGMENT - D.J. MOHARIR, J.:---This appeal is directed against a money decree of Rs. 19,099/- passed against the defendants in a suit for recovery of his dues by a contractor engaged by the defendants.

2. The appellants-defendants is the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the M.S.E.B.) and the second defendant is its Assitant Controller of Stores at Nasik Road. The defendant called for tenders under a tender notice dated 28th August 1971 pertaining to a transporting contract to be given for the year 1972 for its Nasik region. The contract to be given was for clearing, unloading, loading, transporting and stacking of equipments and material of all description and types including heavy machinery received by the Stores of the Defendant at Dhule through Railways, booked in wagons or in small bogies and through road transport to their Store centre as also from Store Centre to the railway station as would be directed by the officer in charge of the stores centre concerned. The respondent-plaintiff who was one of the persons who submitted his tenders in this behalf and the same was accepted as per Exhibit 119. A letter of indemnity was also issued on 3rd January 1972 as is admitted.

3. The respondent-plaintiff's work accordingly commenced with effect from 1st January 1972 and it went on, however, only upto 30th September 1972 on which date he gave a notice Exhibit 124 to the appellant-defendant M.S.E.B. informing that with effect from 1st October 1972, he would discontinue the work as per the contract and that the contract would as such stand terminated. It is also admitted, therefore, that no work was done by the respondent-plaintiff transport contractor from 1st October 1972 onwards.

4. The reason for so terminating the contract, according to the plaintiff, was this: Under the terms and conditions of the contract the respondent-plaintiff was to present his running bills on a fortnightly basis in triplicate together with relevant documents. These were to be submitted to the operating officer of the M.S.E.B. at Dhule. Separate bills in respect of separate freight charges and town charges were also to be submitted. In its turn, under the terms and conditions as agreed upon, the defendant M.S.E.B. was to make the payment of the bills within two months of the plaintiff-contractor's submission thereof. The respondent-plaintiff had accordingly carried on the work of transporting goods from the railway station at Dhule to the Stores of the appellant-defendant. He had in that regard submitted 20 bills to the defendant for being passed and paid out. These were submitted in the period as also in respect of the period of his work i.e., 1st January, 1972 to 30th September, 1972. None of these bills was, however, and to the respondent's complete frustration, paid by the defendant M.S.E.B. By a letter dated 10th October, 1972 (Exhibit 125), the M.S.E.B. made a reply to the plaintiff's letter at Exhibit 124 dated 30th September 1972 and informed him that his bills were under scrutiny, that these would shortly be paid also, after making deductions for the loss of material, towards the security deposit and towards sundry recoveries, etc. He was also called upon not to discontinue the work as the transport contractor. It is the plaintiff's case that it is because no payment whatsoever was made to him under these bills, the first set of five running bills having been submitted as far back as on 11th April, 1972, that he went short of funds and found it impossible to operate his vehicles and carry out his obligation under the contract. It is, therefore, that he had been compelled, because of the attitude on the part of the defendant M.S.E.B. in not making payments, to terminate the contract. It appears that when the plaintiff thus terminated the contract, the defendant M.S.E.B. engaged another transport contractor Din Mitra Malvahatuk Mandal for the remaining period of the year.

5. According to the plaintiff, he was entitl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document