TATA LOCOMOTIVE AND ENGINEERING CO LTD Vs. SARDAR KARTAR SINGH
LAWS(PAT)-1960-5-5
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on May 10,1960

TATA LOCOMOTIVE AND ENGINEERING CO. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
SARDAR KARTAR SINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

CROFT V. LUMLEY [REFERRED TO]
CROFT V. LUMLEY [REFERRED TO]
W.WILLIS V. DAVIES; DAY V. MCLEA [REFERRED TO]
ACKROYD V. SMITHIES [REFERRED TO]
DAVENPORT V. THE QUEEN [REFERRED TO]
TORRANCE V. THE BANK OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA [REFERRED TO]
FIRM BASDEO RAM SARUP V. FIRM DILSUKHRAI SEWAK RAM [REFERRED TO]
CHOTU MIA VS. MTSUNDRI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DIPCHAND GOLENCHA VS. M ABHECHAND AND CO [LAWS(CAL)-1961-5-16] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BABULAL UTTAMCHAND BHANDARI [LAWS(BOM)-1967-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
TRIDENT ARCHITECTURAL ALUMINIUM PRIVATE LIMITED VS. JINDAL STEELS [LAWS(KAR)-2021-10-79] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

V.N.Sinha, J. - (1.)(After stating the allegations of the plaintiff and the defendant and the issues arising thereon His Lordship proceeded). (1) The first question that has been urged in this appeal is one of estoppel and acquiescence covered by issue No. 22. The facts necessary tor the determination of this question are as follows: On the 19th of September, 1952, the defendant Company sent a letter to the plaintiff contractor to the following effect:
"Sub:-- Our orders Nos. 338 and 373 for installation of Machine Tools in our Works. With reference to your claims on the above two contracts and your subsequent discussion with us in our office on the 21st June, 1952, and 17th September 1952, on this subject, we are sending herewith our cheque for Rs. 31,302-8-0 (Rupees thirtyone thousand three hundred and two and anas eight only) in full and final settlement of all your claims against the Company on the above two. contracts. For your information we are enclosing herewith a statement showing complete details as to how the above sum of Rs. 31,302-8-0 has been arrived at after re-checking some of the bills as desired by you in the course of our discussion on the 21st June, 1952 and in the light of the fresh evidence of your claims put forward by you. Kindly sign the enclosed receipt and return to us for our records."
The letter has been marked as Exhibit A(23). A cheque for Rs. 31,302-8-0 was enclosed with the letter, with a statement showing the details and the amounts payable together with a receipt. Exhibit A (23) was followed by a letter from the Company to the contractor, dated the 27th of September, 1952, which was an answer to the Contractor's letter to the Company, dated the 22nd of September, 1952. The Company's letter has been marked as exhibit 1(g). The relevant portion of the letter runs as follows:
"With reference to your letter No. L/903/52 dated 22nd September. 1952, it was made quite clear in our letter referred to by you that our cheque for Rs. 31.302-8-0 (Rupees thirty-one thousand three hundred and two and annas eight only) was sent to you in full and final satisfaction of all your claims against us on the contracts PWO/ 338 and PWO/373 and all the other works done by you for us. We have nothing further to add in this connection. We shall, therefore, be glad if you will please sign and return the receipt form sent with our above letter at an early date. In spite of the above, if you are taking recourse to legal action, you will be doing the same at your sole risk and responsibility. Yours faithfully,"
A third letter from the Company to the Contractor, dated the 21st of October, 1952 has been exhibited as Exhibit l(f). The relevant portion of the letter runs thus:
"With reference to your letter No. L/932/52 dated 6th October 1952, it is a misrepresentation of facts that our Controller of Accounts asked you to seek legal advice to realise what you state as balance amount due to you and to which we do not agree. In his letter No. TAB/L/134/5897 of 27th September, 1952 addressed to you, and with which I fully concur, the Controller of Accounts stated that the amount of Rs. 31,302-8-0 paid to you was in final settlement of all your dues, and, as this figure was worked out after very careful examination of all your claims, there is no balance whatever due to you from us. and as such, if you took legal action as indicated in your letter No. L/903/52 of 22nd-September 1952, it will be at your sole risk and responsibility."

(2.)It was argued before the learned Subordinate Judge, as it has been argued before us, that the acceptance "of Rs. 31,302-8-0 by the Contractor, paid by cheque, in full and final settlement of his claim, estopped him from making any further claim from the Company. This argument was not accepted by the learned Judge, who has held, upon oral and documentary evidence in this connection, that the Contractor had not accepted the money sent by the cheque in question, in full and final settlement of his claim, and as such, the suit is not barred by estoppel and acquiescence.
(3.)Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge under issue No. 22 is incorrect, and that upon the facts mentioned above, the plaintiff cannot successfully claim that further amounts are due to him under the two contracts. Learned Counsel has urged that the plaintiff was paid Rs. 31,302-8-0 ''in full and final settlement of his claim against the Company under the two contracts. Having accepted the money, it is urged, the plaintiff cannot turn round and say that he had accepted Rs. 31,302-8-0 but not in full and final settlement of his claims. Learned Counsel has strongly contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to accept the defendant's money amounting to Rs. 31,302-8-0, on his own terms. He could have, it is urged, accepted the defendant's money on the defendant's terms or he should have refused to accept the defendant's money on the defendant's terms. In this connection, learned Counsel has relied upon Sheikh Ma-homad Jan v. Munshi Ganga Bishun Singh, 38 Tnd App 80 and Chotu Mia v. Mt Sundri, AIR 1945 Patna 260 (FB).


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.