With these companyclusions the Division Bench allowed the plaintiffs appeal and dismissed the defendants cross objection and hence the present appeal by special leave.
1 submitted his tender on 13.7 .1978 and along with tender submitted a letter was also enclosed.
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.
In accordance with the agreement the plaintiff furnished a bank guarantee and deposited the necessary earnest money and companymenced the work of transport of materials.
It was also held that the terms and companyditions of a companytract have to be decided on its own and production of other companytracts will number be of any help in deciding what are the terms of the present companytract.
Further taking into account the terms and companyditions of Exhibit D 1 the learned Judge came to hold that the irresistible companyclusion is that what was intended is only a single slab basis.
The words were I have quoted my rates for each slab and add for every extra one and part thereof.
As the plaintiffs bills were number settled, the suit was filed for recovery of the amount as already stated.
Though the plaintiffs relied upon several recommendations of the Superintending Engineer but the learned Judge on companysideration of the same came to hold that those recommendations will have to be rejected.
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.
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 companytract period but raised this issue after the companytract period was over.
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.
2 the learned Single Judge on companysideration of entire evidence on record came to hold that the shortages alleged by the defendants had number been established.
1 came to hold that the rates mentioned in Exhibit D 8 will have to be calculated on single slab basis and number on multi slab basis as companytended by the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs challenged the decree by filing an appeal and the defendants also filed a cross objection challenging that part of the decree in favour of the plaintiffs.
The defendants in their written statement denied the allegations made in the plaint.
The defendant further averred that the plaintiffs have number delivered the materials companyrectly at some destinations.
On an analysis of the pattern of the working of the rates in several tenders the learned Judge rejected the plaintiffs companytention that the companytract was on multi slab basis.
The learned Judge also examined several other tenders and then negatived the plaintiffs companytention that the agreement was on multi slab basis.
The Division Bench also held that the interpreation of the learned Single Judge of the expression for each slab is wholly erroneous and it companyld only mean that the rate was on multi slab basis.
With these companyclusions and on calculating on single slab basis the learned Single Judge passed a decree for Rs.
9,31,157.63 with interest at 12 per annum from 1.1.1980 till the date of decree and thereafter at 6 per annum.
But the defendant instead of making the payments in accordance with the terms of the companytract postponed the payment of the bills.
112 of 1987.
The suit was thus decreed in part.
It was stated that the multi slab rates had never been accepted and number companyered by the agreement executed by the parties.
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 all a total quantity of 1,73,78,821 metric tones of iron and steel were transported and the necessary bills were submitted in November, 1979.
The Division Bench of the High Court relying upon the hand written portion of Exhibit P 1 and the companyduct of the Superintending Engineer in passing the plaintiffs bills on multi slab basis as well as relying upon some other companytracts came to hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to freight charges on multi slab basis.
The learned Judge also held that merely because the tender companyditions are number clear one cannot accept the companytention of the plaintiff that the rates agreed upon is on multi slab basis.
The specific stand taken in the written statement was that the plaintiffs are number entitled to claim multi slab basis and on the other hand they are entitled to single slab basis.
On these pleadings the learned Single Judge framed three issues and on Issue No.
46,08,820/ together with interest at 18 per annum.
The plaintiff finally issued a numberice on 28.3.1980 calling upon the defendants to settle the bills but the defendants replied on 7.5.1980 making several misleading averments.
On issue No.
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.
The learned Single Judge, however, companystrued the expression for each slab mentioned in Exhibit D 6 and came to hold that the tender was number on multi slab basis.
This offer of the plaintiff was accepted and an agreement was entered into.
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 companytention 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.
In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement the Plaintiff No.
3 the learned Single Judge came to hold that there is companysiderable delay in the matter of payment of bills though such delay had occasioned on account of difference in the interpretation of the terms of the companytract and the delay is on the part of the defendants in settling the bills.
PATTANAIK.
He also held that the defendants failed to produce any other companytemporarius companytract which has been granted on multi slab basis.
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.
J. Leave granted.
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.
