When a defendant's own authorized site in-charge certifies work statements, the defendant cannot repudiate such claims without presenting evidence to the contrary, nor can they hold the plaintiff liable for unauthorized payments made to third parties after explicit instructions were given by the plaintiff not to make those payments.

This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant/defendant against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.04.2003 passed by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.No.2094 of 1997, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The plaintiff/respondent filed the above suit vide O.S.No.2094 of 1997 against the sole defendant for recovery of money for a sum of Rs.11,25,101.19 paise, which includes further interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 08.03.1997 on which date the amount was payable to the date of the suit.

4. The case of Plaintiff is that it is a proprietary concern with its main office in Nagpur and a branch office in Hyderabad. It operates in the fields of construction activity of building plans, interior decorations, marketing, and advertising. The Defendant is a Private Limited Company with its principal office located in Madras (now Chennai) and a branch office in Hyderabad. The plaintiff initially submitted a quotation on 15.12.1996, for excavation of black cotton soil, which was accepted by the defendant with modifications on 17.12.1996. A subsequent quotation for “Morrum” supply at Sanathnagar was submitted on 26.12.1996, and accepted by the defendant with a reduced rate. Following satisfactory performance, the defendant also placed an order for the supply of various sizes of metal. Payments for all works were to be made weekly at the site, based on measurements and the plaintiff submitted bills at regular intervals during the execution of the work. The plaintiff carried out excavation and related works for the defendant, involving material supply and use of machinery. The defendant, after verifying the work and measurements, made payments and communicated with government agencies (Concor and RITES) regarding the contract. A dispute arose when the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's work statement but later reduced the rates and prepared a corrected statement. The total value of the excavated work was Rs.8,35,830/- and the plaintiff completed the work to the satisfaction of the defendant and principal agencies, with no complaints about quality. The plaintiff completed various earthwork activities including dressing, levelling, and dozing, for which a total sum of Rs.6,13,403/- was payable. Despite repeated requests and correspondence, the defendant failed to settle the outstanding amount, including a balance for other works. The defendant ignored requests for settlement and a meeting at their Hyderabad office. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit to recover Rs. 11,25,101-19 paise, which includes interest at 24% per annum from 8.03.1997 until the date of the suit.

5. In reply to the plaintiff averments, the defendant filed written statement and contended that it is a Private Limited Company, which had secured a contract in the year 1996 for construction work at a Container Corporation of India Depot in Hyderabad, which includes construction of pavements, parking areas, roads, walls, and drains. Initially, M/s. Alve Construction was responsible for excavating and disposing of black cotton soil but after discontinuing the work, they sought sub-contractors. Unique Quality, a former material supplier, was approached to undertake the excavation and work execution was to follow specified standards wit