Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
N. Chaudhury, J.
Siotia Steels Ltd. —Appellant
versus
National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. (N.B.C.C.) & Ors. —Respondents
RFA No.13 of 2008
Decided on 26.6.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. SP Roy, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. A Thakur, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Since letter not constituted fresh contract or promise to pay, new cause of action did not arise on that date or thereafter.
Headnote:Contract Act, 1872 — Section 25(3) — Promise of writing letter to Agartala/Biswanath Chariali/ Naltoli Units of defendant — For examining and settling claim of plaintiff provided same was due — It does not appear to be any promise to pay at all — Letter shows intention of concerned officer to get claim of plaintiff verified — If upon such verification it found that plaintiff has valid claim then question of making of payment would arise — HELD — Such conditional statement does not appear to be promise to pay within meaning of S. 25(3) of Contract Act to bring into force fresh cause of action or contract. [Para 21]
(ii) Interest on Delayed Payment to Small Scale and Ancillary Undertaking Act, 1993 — Plaintiff made calculation of interest on basis of some certificates issued by SBI — These certificates/letters issued by AGM/Manager of SBI about rate of interest in respective periods of time — These documents may be marked and exhibited by court but contents of these documents could have been proved only by examining person who issued same — HELD — Its difficult to hold that lending rate of SBI duly proved by plaintiff in accordance with law. [Para 18]
Result: Appeal dismissed
N. Chaudhury, J.—This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn. No. 1) at Guwahati in Money Suit No. 192/2000 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff in entirety.
2. Present appellant, as plaintiff, instituted Money Suit No. 192/2000 stating that it is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and a registered S.S.I. unit under the Directorate of Industries, Government of Assam vide No. 020504450. It has manufacturing units of M.S. Rods, TOR steels of various sizes at Dharapur at Guwahati and is engaged in sale and supply thereof to various buyers including the departments of the Government of Assam. The Chief Project Manager of the defendant No. 2 invited sealed quotations from manufacturers/ suppliers for supply of steel and cement on 29.01.1993 and plaintiff submitted quotations on 09.02.1993 whereupon the Chief Project Manager of defendant No. 2 placed supply orders on various dates for supply of steels at different working sites of defendants No. 1 and 2 as per the supply orders. The defendants assured the plaintiff of making payment within 14 days from the date of delivery of goods. Accordingly, plaintiff supplied goods on various dates from 24.02.1993 upto 26.05.1993 on as many as 44 occasions. Plaintiff also submitted bills w.e.f. 24,26/02/1993 till 27.05.1993 against individual supply orders. Plaintiff served to the defendant No. 2 the copies of letters dated 12.03.1993 of Steel Authority of India (SAIL) along with their letters dated 12.03.1993, 13.03.1993, 20.03.1993 and 22.03.1993 claiming the payment of local freight for materials delivered within Guwahati and also to make the payment due to increase in price of materials w.e.f. 27.02.1993. But despite repeated requests by the plaintiff and assurances from the defendant No. 2, the payments were not made. Plaintiff wrote letters to the defendants on 23.03.1993, 04.03.1995, 14.03.1995, 25.08.1995, 06.10.1995, 03.11.1995, 24.05.1996, 20.07.1996, 15.02.1997, 31.03.1997, 29.04.1997, 04.06.1997, 14.07.1997, 22.06.1998 and 20.10.1999 requesting for payment of outstanding bills and ultimately by letter dated 20.10.1999 plaintiff informed the defendants that an amount of Rs. 23,697.45 was yet payable by the defendants. By that letter plaintiff contradicted that the defendant No. 2 had wrongly described the unpaid amount to be Rs.14,012.15 and Rs. 2,500/- for supplies to Agartala and Naltoli work sites of the defendant No. 2. Payment of Rs. 33,199/- to the plaintiff was also due to increase in price as condition No. 10 and 11 of the quotation of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 by letter dated 22.02.1997 informed the plaintiff that the earnest money of Rs. 5,000/- would be refunded for which cheque is ready for collection by the plaintiff. By that letter defendant No. 2 informed the plaintiff that he was going to write letters to the units at Agartala, Biswanath Chariali and Naltoli for examining the claims of the plaintiff and to settle the claims. By letter dated 13.05.1997, the Manager Finance of the defendant No. 2 asked the plaintiff to correspond directly to the unit in-charges where supplies were made for outstanding payments. Thereafter by letter dated 30.06.1997, defendant No. 2 informed the plaintiff that units in-charges of the defendant No. 2 have already been requested to release the pending dues to the plaintiff and by letter dated 11.11.1999 unit in-charge of Agartala was also accordingly requested. Plaintiff manufactured and supplied the goods to defendants by taking loan from S.B.I, Main Branch and paid interest at various rates between the period from 1992 to 2000 and thereupon obtained certificates on 23.02.1996, 03.08.1998, 02.12.1998 and 22.06.1999 showing the rates of interest charged by the bankers on various dates. Plaintiff claimed that business transactions with defendants are duly maintained by them in their respective Books of Accounts in ordinary co
