Corporation Limited vs M/S. United Construction Company
2022 Latest Caselaw 3785 Cal

10   30.6.2022
Sc   Ct. no.8
                                              FA 108 OF 2008
                                                    --------------

National Projects Construction Corporation Limited Vs.

M/S. United Construction Company

Ms. Rakhi Shroff ... For the Appellant

The appeal is directed against a judgment and

decree dated 15th December, 2006 in a money suit filed

by one M/S. United Construction Company against the

present appellant.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the

appellant. We feel that the suit could have been decreed

only on the basis of Ext.7. The said letter was issued by a

responsible officer of the defendant/appellant to the

plaintiff/respondent in reply to a demand made by the

plaintiff in its letter dated 7th February, 2002. For better

appreciation, we reproduce the said letter in full.

"To M/s. United Construction Co. Babupara, PO: Falakata, Dist. Jalpaiguri.

Sub : - Your outstanding due payment as on 31.03.2001 Ref : - Your letter No.Nil dt.7.02.2002.

Dear Sir,

With reference to your aforesaid letter this is to inform you that an outstanding amount due to your favour is as detailed below :

Sl Name of work Bill Amount T.D.S. Payment of bill Balance payment No Rs. (Rs) .

1. Supply of Bed 9,383.00 Nil Nil 9383/-

2. Supply of Aggre-

Gate (Pakur variety) 20mm & down size 1,82,750.00 Nil Nil 1,82,750/-

3. Supply of bouldor and placing of the same in crates 4,24,395.00 2395.00 2,39,580.00 1,82,815/-

4. Pouring of M-15 grade concreting 2,95,496.00 1564.00 1,56,420.00 1,37,512/-

5. Supply of boulder stone metal and sand 1,20,800.00 Nil Nil 1,20,800/- Total Rs. 10,32,824.00 3959.00 3,96,000.00 6,33,260/-

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

(M.N. Tiu) Unit Officer"

The said letter has taken into consideration all

relevant facts that are required to be considered for the

purpose of determining the amount due and payable to

the plaintiff/decree holder for the works done. The

evidence was to show that the plaintiff/respondent has

performed their obligation but were not paid certain

amount.

There is a dispute with regard to the claim of

amount payable for the works done. According to the

Ext.7, the letter dated 8th April, 2002 conclusively shows

that the appellant/defendant has taken into

consideration all the relevant factors to determine the

sum of Rs.6,33,260/- as the amount due and payable to

the plaintiff/respondent for the works done. The refusal

to make such payment was financial crunch.

Learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that

the said letter was issued under coercion or by unfair

means.

However, we could not find from the pleadings that

any such defence was raised in the pleading or before the

trial court.

The author of the said Ext.7 is a B.S.C. Engineer

(Civil) and was working in the office of the

appellant/defendant for the last 26 years and was looking

after civil works. During cross-examination he has

admitted that the respondent/plaintiff was entrusted with

the job of - i) M-15 Grade Concrete Pitching work in

aperon and in slops, ii). Supply and placing of boulders in

crates, iii). Supply of pakur varieties and iv) supply of bed

materials for roads.

He has not stated that the signature was obtained

on the said letter by coercion or by unfair means. On the

basis of such testimony read with other evidence on

record we are of the view that the learned trial court was

justified in decreeing the suit for a sum of Rs.6,33,260/-

along with interest.

The appellant at the time of admission of appeal

admitted that a sum of Rs.3,57,190/- is due and payable

to the plaintiff/respondent and in fact, has paid the same

amount to the decree holder in the execution proceeding.

The balance amount of Rs.3,89,258/- with accrued

interest thereon shall be paid to the plaintiff/respondent

company by the learned Registrar General of this Court

by a bank draft.

Since the respondent is not represented, we direct

the office of the learned Registrar (Administration, L &

OM) to communicate this order to the decree holder at the

address mentioned in the causetitle within a week from

date and the decree holder is directed to realize the said

amount from the office of the learned Registrar General.

If an approach is made with a certified copy of this

order, the Registrar General shall expedite such release.

The appeal accordingly fails. The suit is decreed in

full.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for,

be furnished expeditiously.

(Soumen Sen, J.)

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)