Nikhil Nath Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.)This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,22,869.75p, being the amount outstanding on account of work done but not fully paid. The plaintiff's case shortly stated is that the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant for mining operation for extraction of iron ores, removal of rejects, transportation of ores from the defendant's Belkundi Mines at Barbil to railway siding or to a site of equivalent distance as directed. The contract was executed on 30.7.83 initially for 2 years but was extended with mutual consent. It is plaintiff's case that the contract came to an end on 14.7.86. The contract stipulated that in addition to the earnest money amounting to Rs. 31,800.00 deposited by the plaintiff, the defendant would recover 2% of the value of the work done on the gross value from each running bill of the plaintiff to make up a total security deposit of 3% of the total value of the work done. The security deposit is not to carry any interest. The plaintiff continued its business till 147.86 and submitted bills in respect of such work done. In accordance with the agreement the defendant deducted 2% of the value of the work done on the gross value of each running bill and thereby the total deduction was for a sum of Rs. 66,296/- and thus the security deposit amounted to Rs. 98,096/-. It is plaintiff s case that the said security deposit has been retained by the defendant despite the fact that the contract came to an end on 14.7.86 and demand has been made for its refund.
(2.)It is plaintiff's case that between Sept. 1983 and June 1986 the plaintiff submitted running bills to the extent of Rs. 33,14,923.67p. The defendant acknowledged the said bills and has not raised any dispute thereto so far. Out of the amount due on the said bills the defendant deducted 2% on account of security deposit. the defendant also deducted 10% out of the said bills for paying the amount to the plaintiff subsequently. The defendant paid to the plaintiff the said 10% amount deducted upto the period of May 1985 for despatches to IISCO and upto March 1985 for despatches to Bokaro Steel Plant and Durgapur Steel Plant but has not paid any amount thereafter although the said deductions were made regularly out of the running bills. As a result sura of Rs. 91.589.75p. is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff on that ground.
(3.)It is the plaintiff's case that it was his responsibility under we contract to sort out the ores having proper specification and transport the same to No. 2 railway siding at Barbil and it was the duty of the defendant under the contract to make arrangement to load the same od railway wagons. The plaintiff was entitled to get from the defendant transportation charges from the pit head to the railway siding. On the date when the contract came to an end there were 8328 M. Ts of iron ores at the rail head transported by the plaintiff for which the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,33,184/- at the rate of Rs. 28.00 per M. T. being the rate prevailing at the time when the contract came to an end.
;