- (1.) Long time has since elapsed after the order appealed against was passed. Mr. Roy is unable to enlighten the Court as to whether pursuant to the order the amount recovered from another bill was refunded or not. However, he submits that he obtained an order of stay in the appeal but whether before the order of stay was passed the amou it was refunded or not is not within his knowledge. There is a direction for referring the matter to the arbitration. The question relates to enforcement of terms of contract. We do not think that we can deal with each and every stage of the contract or the performance of its various clauses.
(2.) Mr. Roy, however, draws our attention to one of the provisions of the contract at page 88 of the paper book viz: Clause 8 of the General Terms and Conditions of this contract, where it is stipulated that the Telecommunication Department is entitled to recover such amount from any sum due to the contractor under the same contract or any other contract after exhausting the security deposit of the concerned contract.
(3.) In Union of India vs. Raman Iron Foundry, AIR 1974 SC 1265, relied upon by the learned Single Judge in support of the order for refund, it was held that such a recovery was illegal. However, the said decision was considered in the case of H. M, Kamaluddin Ansari & Co. vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 29. In paragraph 26 thereof the Apex Court held while dealing with clause 18 of the contract that "the clause, in our opinion, gives wide powers to the Union of India to recover the amount claimed by appropriating any sum then due or which at any time thereafter become due to the contractor under other contracts.";