Arun Madan ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgmentof the learned Single Judge dated 29/03/1979 whereby the suit of theplaintiff was partly decreed. ( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge after carefully examining the rival contentions of the parties and issues involved did not allow the claim of theplaintiff with regard to first item i. e. alleged deduction by respondent/defendant No. 2 vide amendment letter dated 11-6-1968 amounting to Rs. 31,716. 00, while the learned Single Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiffwith regard to other two items as claimed in the plaint which were to thefollowing effect as stated in paragraph 17 of the plaint : BALANCE due on account of difference in theprice of Antimony. Rs. 10,175. 19 5% value relating to the supply of 228,31 Kilograms Antifriction Bearing Alloyunder R/r No. 960668 dated 5/6-9-1968and Inspection Note No. NI/1928/ NF-19 (Part) dated 24-8-1966. Rs. 3,303. 99interest @ 6% per annum on Rs. 54. 195. 18pfor 31 months I. e. , from 1-6-1969 to31-12-1971. Rs. 7,005. 22 ( 3 ) THE Union of India in its written statement admitted the executionof the agreement/contract No. SR-5/5042/148-A/11/7112 dated 3-3-1965marked as Ex. P-8, which was duly entered and acted upon between theparties. In its written statement, the respondent, however, denied its liabilityto pay any of the four amounts totalling Rs. 52,200. 40. ( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framedby the learned Single Judge :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum ofrs. 45,195. 18p. on account of the items alleged in para 17 ofthe plaint ? OPP2. If issue No. 1 is found in favour of the plaintiff whether theplaintiffs entitled to any interest on the said amount ? If so atwhat rate and for what period ? OPP3. Relief. ( 5 ) WITH regard to issue No. 1 which included three items of theclaim i. e. Rs. 31,716. 00, Rs. 10,175. 19 and Rs. 303. 99, the main contest between the parties was with respect to first item of the claim i. e. Rs. 31,716. 00. The plaintiff contended that the contract between the parties was for supplyof 264 M/tons of Antifriction Bearing Alloy Ingot grade 5 of I. S. 25/61for Rs. 6,98,240. 00 F. O. R. Bombay. 00, Rs. 10,175. 19 and Rs. 303. 99, the main contest between the parties was with respect to first item of the claim i. e. Rs. 31,716. 00. The plaintiff contended that the contract between the parties was for supplyof 264 M/tons of Antifriction Bearing Alloy Ingot grade 5 of I. S. 25/61for Rs. 6,98,240. 00 F. O. R. Bombay. It was further contended before thelearned Single Judge that there was a firm price contract and that pricecould not be altered on account of any change in the price of the rawmaterials utilised for manufacture of the alloy. With regard to this contention, the learned Single Judge opined that the said contention of the plaintiffwas not supported by the terms of the contract, and therefore, disallowedthe same on the ground that the price variation could be on account of newlevies, fluctuation in statutory rules of foreign exchange etc. ( 6 ) THE parties did not dispute that four elements, namely, Tin,copper, Lead and Antimony were to be used for the manufacture of thealloy. The parties further did Rot dispute that the said components requiredfor the manufacture of alloy had to be imported and in this regard theplaintiff/appellant was to be assisted by the defendant/respondent in obtaining the necessary import licence and the foreign exchange for importing theaforesaid three components. The parties did not dispute that Antimonyalthough an imported item was to be purchased by the plaintiff/appellantfrom an Indian Seller, namely, M/s. Star Metals Refinery (P) Ltd. ( 7 ) THE tender was submitted by the appellant with the respondent-Union of India for 603. 4 M/tons whereas the Respondent confinedand accepted the offer for 264 M/tons only and in lieu thereofissued an advance acceptance on 12/2/1965 which confirmed on 3-3-1965. Thus the duly concluded contract came into existence between the parties. ( 8 ) THE appellant provided the respondent with the required percentage of each of the four components as referred to above for preparing thealloy. The appellant also quoted the then prevailing c. i. f. value of eachcomponent. It was also settled between the parties that any fluctuations inthe c. i. f. value would be to the buyer s account. The appellant, however,did not agree to Clause 6 of D. G. S and D Form 100-C, Ex. The appellant also quoted the then prevailing c. i. f. value of eachcomponent. It was also settled between the parties that any fluctuations inthe c. i. f. value would be to the buyer s account. The appellant, however,did not agree to Clause 6 of D. G. S and D Form 100-C, Ex. D-8, which readsas under:-Clause 6 : "transit Insurancethe purchaser will not pay separately for transit insuranceand the supplier will be responsible till the entire stores contractedfor service in good condition at destination. The consignee will, as soon as possible but not later than 30days of the date of arrival of stores at destination, notify the con-tractor of any loss or damage to the stores that may have occurredduring transit. Tenders/quotations in which transit insurance cost has beenclaimed as an extra may not be considered. " ( 9 ) THE other terms and conditions of the tender/quotations are notrelevant to be referred here since there is no dispute between the parties withregard to the same. ( 10 ) IMMEDIATELY on the supply of the alloy by the plaintiff, workanalysis of the samples was made by the respondent and it was discoveredthat the finished alloy contained 5. 09% Tin. 0. 54% Copper, 14. 84% Antimonyand 79-53% Lead. On this basis 264 M/tons of finished alloy containing23. 4576 M/tons of Tin, 1. 4256 M/tons of Copper, 39. 1776 M/tons ofantimony and 209. 9592 M/tons of Lead was prepared. During the courseof hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellant had convassed before usthat the findings of the learned Single Judge sustaining the plea of therespondent/defendant for deduction of Rs. 31. 716. 00 and negativing the claimof the appellant/plaintiff was not justified. It was further contended by thelearned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge construednote 2 of Clause 20 of the Agreement/contract which was with regard toc. i. f. price indication subject to fluctuation to the buyer s account till shipments against licence received were finally affected. It was further contendedby the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge erredin not carefully analysing Clause 20 Note 2 of the agreemant harmoniouslywith the other terms of the contract. We have carefully considered the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. We have not been able topersuade ourselves to accept these contentions. It was further contendedby the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge erredin not carefully analysing Clause 20 Note 2 of the agreemant harmoniouslywith the other terms of the contract. We have carefully considered the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. We have not been able topersuade ourselves to accept these contentions. ( 11 ) THE learned Single Judge has rightly observed that it is theadmitted case of the parties that for the import of Tin, Copper and Lead asper c. i. f. value shown in the tender/quotation the import price of the afore-same quantities would total amount to Rs. 6,05,241. 00. As against this theactual c. i. f. cost of the aforesaid three components as borne by the appellantwas Rs. 5,73,465. 00. This clearly shows that there was a fluctuation in C. I. F. value and it was reduced by Rs. 31,7l6. 00 than expected. This finding of thelearned Single Judge is supported by Note-2, Clause 20 of the contract/agreement wherein the respondents/defendants claimed reduction in the f. o. rbombay price, Note-2 Clause 20 of the contract/agreement reads as under :- "the C. I. F. price indication is subject to fluctuation to buyer saccount till shipment against licence received are finally effected. " ( 11 ) THUS the C. I. F. value was indicated by the appellant in thetender itself. It will be relevant to mention here that in view of advanceacceptance of tender notified vide DGSandd letter No. SR-5/5042/148-A/11/7112 dated 12-2-1965, special instructions were issued by the respondentsof which Clause 19 (b) is relevant for the sake of reference, the operativepart of it, reads as under : - "to enable you to import the goods expeditiously in supply againstthe contract, an Import Recommendation Certificate is being issuedseparately. It must be clearly understood that this assistance ispurely on ex-gratia basis and Government do not undertake togrant an import licence and this assistance rendered to you will notin any way effect the prices and delivery terms of the Contract andis without prejudice to the rights of Government under terms of thecontract. " ( 13 ) BY Clause 20 (2) and (3), the respondents further clarified theposition with regard to the c. i. f. price as under :- CLAUSE 20 (2) and (3) (2) The c. i. f. price indication is subject to fluctuation tobuyer s account till shipment against licences received are finallyeffected. " ( 13 ) BY Clause 20 (2) and (3), the respondents further clarified theposition with regard to the c. i. f. price as under :- CLAUSE 20 (2) and (3) (2) The c. i. f. price indication is subject to fluctuation tobuyer s account till shipment against licences received are finallyeffected. (3) Any new levies on the import of raw material and/orfinished alloy any increase in existing levies only fluctuation instatutory rates of foreign exchange are to buyer s account and thisis also applicable in case of imports of raw materials forreplenishment. " ( 14 ) THE above instructions formed part and parcel of the scheduleto acceptance of tender and on behalf of the respondents these were issuedby the Assistant, Director (Supplies) for and on behalf of the President ofindia on 2-3-1965. The said schedule was duly communicated to theappellant and the appellant did not protest the same during the period ofthe contract. ( 15 ) THE learned Single Judge had examined the matter carefully andhad taken into consideration all the relevant documents placed on the record. We find no infirmity in the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge. Thelearned Single Judge had arrived at a right conclusion which to our mind isjustified and for interference. We affirm the findings of the learned Singlejudge, dismiss the appeal. It is relevant to mention here that despite the factthat the appeal remained on the cause list of regular matters for a number ofdays but none appeared on behalf. of the Union of India. In view of thesecircumstances we do not want to burden the appellant with costs. We directthe parties to bear their own costs.