Judgment :- The appellant/defendant has projected this appeal as against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.6945 of 1996 dated 11.08.1997 on the file of V Additional Court, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The necessary summation of respondent/plaintiffs case are as follows: The appellant/defendant has called for Tender No.OP/HING/CAP/M 13 Portable DG set for the supply of 15 Nos. of 125 KVA Diesel Generating sets. The respondent/plaintiff has filed their Quotation No. SPA/MDS/7637/83 dated 30.12.1983, for the supply of 10 Nos. 60 KVA and 110/125 KVA New Diesel Generator sets. The appellant/defendant has decided to accept the quotation put forward by the respondent/plaintiff and called for discussions. After discussions with the officers of the appellant/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff by its letter dated 15.03.1984 has confirmed the decisions and acceptances taken at the discussions. As per the said confirmation letter it has been agreed that five sets will be delivered after three weeks from the date of issue of order in writing and that subsequently five sets will be delivered every week. In regard to the payment of 90% of the invoice claims should be made against the discharge documents/proforma invoices, through bank and the balance of 10% against commissioning. The appellant/defendant has agreed to pay for trollies to be delivered separately. 3. The respondent/plaintiff started supplying the generators as per the orders placed by the appellant/defendant periodically. But the appellant/defendant has made payment as per the terms of purchase orders. All the payments from the beginning have been delayed and the respondent/plaintiff has incurred heavy loss and interest, bank charges, traveling and other expenses. 4. The respondent/plaintiff has supplied 8 Nos. of 125 KVA-Generators as per purchase order dated 04.04.1984. The said supplies have been made and installed at the Mangalore Yard of the Appellant/Defendant as per their directions. The Respondent/Plaintiff has also attended to the defects through their engineers as pointed out by the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant by its letter dated 08.07.1986 has acknowledged the supply of 8 Nos. of 125 KVA Generators and also acknowledged that 6 Nos. have been supplied with trollies and Anti Vibrational Mounting and 2 Nos. have been supplied with trollies only. For the balance of seven sets the appellant/defendant has canceled the order stating that the respondent/plaintiff has failed to supply the materials. of 125 KVA Generators and also acknowledged that 6 Nos. have been supplied with trollies and Anti Vibrational Mounting and 2 Nos. have been supplied with trollies only. For the balance of seven sets the appellant/defendant has canceled the order stating that the respondent/plaintiff has failed to supply the materials. As per the letter, 90% of the invoice amount has been directed to be realised to the respondent/plaintiff against proforma invoices and the balance 10% on submission of performance bank guarantee of 10%, valid for 12 months from commissioning of DG sets. By letter dated 18.07.1986 the respondent/plaintiff has informed the appellant/defendant that there have been no complaints about the mounting and the performance guarantee is only for the manufacturing defects and that whatever complaints received by them have been attended to all and all the defects pointed out were rectified and that no complaints have been received for one year and that no deduction of any amount be made and demanded payments of the amount has claimed by the respondent/plaintiff. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff by means of an letter dated 25.07.1986 has demanded the payments due to them. In regard to the supplies made by the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant has to furnish C Forms for the purpose of Sales Tax Assessment of the respondent/plaintiff. The appellant/defendant has furnished the C forms to the respondent/plaintiff and the same has been acknowledged by the respondent/plaintiff by its letter dated 210. 1986. The appellant/defendant has sent their cheques for Rs.41,273.78 only after several reminders. 5. By letter dated 23.01.1987, the respondent/plaintiff has demanded payment of 10% towards the supplies made against the purchase orders pending and also pointed out to the appellant/defendant that only one number Anti Vibrational Mounting per trolly instead of 10 Nos. per trolly have been included. It has been pointed out to the appellant/defendant that 10 Nos. of Anti Vibrational Mounting have been acquired per trolly at Rs.745/- each and the differences for 9 Nos. of trolly has to be paid by appellant/defendant and hence claimed a sum of Rs.1,93,934.60ps. With interest at 18% per annum for all the delayed payments made by the appellant/defendant. In this regard, a letter dated 07.02.1996 has been sent to the appellant/defendant demanding the payments due. By letter dated 14.07.1987 the respondent/plaintiff has reiterated its claim and demanded the pending payment by 30.07.1987. With interest at 18% per annum for all the delayed payments made by the appellant/defendant. In this regard, a letter dated 07.02.1996 has been sent to the appellant/defendant demanding the payments due. By letter dated 14.07.1987 the respondent/plaintiff has reiterated its claim and demanded the pending payment by 30.07.1987. It has been pointed out that the bank guarantee dated 19.08.1985 has been submitted at appellant/defendants Bombay Office during the third week of August, 1985 and had refused to accept the same. 6. The respondent/plaintiff has issued an Advocates notice dated 111. 1987 to the appellant/defendant and a reminder notice has also been sent by a letter dated 24.05.1988 through the respondent/plaintiffs Advocate. The appellant/defendant by its letter dated 27.05.1988 has requested the respondent/plaintiff to issue them copies of purchase orders, invoices for verification of the claim and the same have been furnished to the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant by its letter dated 04.09.1988 has denied the claim made by the respondent/plaintiffs stating that no amount is due by them and enclosed a statement of accounts putting forth improper deductions and not calculating the supplies of 9 Nos. of Anti Vibrational Mounting per trolly and Central Sales Tax and the interest claimed for late payments. 7. The appellant/defendant owes a sum of Rs.4,27,995.42 as per the statement of account filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff claims 18% interest per annum towards the delayed payments. 8. Hence, the suit is laid for recovery of a sum if Rs.4,27,995.42 with interest at 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of payment from the appellant/defendant and with costs. The appellant/defendants written statement pleas; 9. The appellant/defendant has called for Tender No.OP/HING/CAP/M 13 Portable DG set for the supply of 15 Nos. of 125 KVA Diesel Generating sets and that the respondent/plaintiff has filed its quotation dated 30.12.1983 towards supply of 10 Nos. of Diesel Generator sets quoting their comparative rate and terms and conditions for the supply. It is clarified on the receipt of the quotation from the respondent/plaintiff the appellant/defendant has called upon the respondent/plaintiffs to clarify certain discrepancies observed in its quotation and subsequently as per letter dated 15.03.1984 the respondent/plaintiff has clarified/confirmed such points as requested by the appellant/defendant. of Diesel Generator sets quoting their comparative rate and terms and conditions for the supply. It is clarified on the receipt of the quotation from the respondent/plaintiff the appellant/defendant has called upon the respondent/plaintiffs to clarify certain discrepancies observed in its quotation and subsequently as per letter dated 15.03.1984 the respondent/plaintiff has clarified/confirmed such points as requested by the appellant/defendant. It is to be noted that as against X-stock delivered originally quoted by the respondent/plaintiff after discussions the respondent/plaintiff has confirmed that five sets will be delivered after three weeks from the date of the order and next five sets each shall be delivered every week thereafter. The appellant/defendant has issued an order dated 04.04.1984 which has been personally received and accepted by the respondent/plaintiff on 24.04.1984. 10. The respondent/plaintiff has failed to comply with the terms and conditions and scope of supply and has thus put the appellant/defendant into enormous difficulties. The factum of delay were time and again communicated to the respondent/plaintiff by means of telegrams/telexes:- TelegramXLN2/6. 85 TLX.74/OP dt. 7. 1984 Tlx. 594/Op. Dt 16. 84 286/OP. dt.17. 84, 207./OP dt. 7. 84, 584/OP dt. 17. 84 471/OP. dt. 7. 84, 946/Op. dt. 27. 84, 8947/Op 8. 84, 142/OP. dt. 8. 84, 397/Op/ dt. 18. 84, 1160/Op dt. 28. 84, 750/OP. dt. 29. 1984. 11. By means of delay and subsequent delay in commissioning of the DG sets the appellant/defendant has incurred heavy production loss. In addition, even on the DG sets commissioned by the respondent/plaintiff a number of defects have been encountered due to substandard base structures of the sets which resulted in frequent failure of the sets. Only in the aforesaid circumstances the appellant/defendant has constrained to take proper measures to encash the Performance Bank Guarantee/Security Deposit as per the provisions of the contract. In the contract, the respondent/plaintiff has failed to submit the Performance Bank Guarantee towards the value of 5% of the contract price as per the terms and conditions of the contract and therefore the appellant/defendant has forfeited a sum of Rs.73,867.80 from the amount payable to the respondent/plaintiff. 12. The respondent/plaintiff in their quotation dated 15.03.1984 has agreed to deliver Anti Vibrational Mountings along with the Generator sets at a nominal price of Rs.745/-each. 12. The respondent/plaintiff in their quotation dated 15.03.1984 has agreed to deliver Anti Vibrational Mountings along with the Generator sets at a nominal price of Rs.745/-each. The said purchase order dated 04.04.1984 has been issued for a lumpsum cost and the appellant/defendant by its letter dated 20.05.1985 has clarified that the demand of cost of Nine Anti Vibrational Mounting has not been accepted for the reasons mentioned therein. 13. The claim of the respondent/plaintiff is barred by Law of Limitation as the appellant/defendant has made the last payment on 08.09.1986 and that the respondent/plaintiff ought to have filed the suit on or before 07.08.1989. The respondent/plaintiffs should have filed the suit in the High Court of Bombay as High Court of Madras does not have jurisdiction to entertain the same. The appellant/defendant is not aware of Application No.4053/1989 whereby the respondent/plaintiff has obtained leave to sue the appellant/defendant at Madras and the appellant/defendant reserves its right to file a separate application in this regard. 14. Before the trial Court, on the side of the respondent/plaintiff witness PW.1 has been examined and Ex.A1 to A13 have been marked and on the side of appellant/defendant DW.1 has been examined and Ex.B1 to B10 have been marked. 15. The trial Court, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record has passed a judgment holding that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,27,995.42 with interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation with costs. 16. The points that arise for rumination in this appeal are:- 1. Whether the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of cause of action is maintainable in Law? 2. Whether the suit is barred by Law of Limitation? 3. Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.4,27,995.42 with 18% interest per annum together with costs? 17. Point No.1 – The respondent/plaintiff in para 9 of the plaint has averred that cause of action for the suit has arisen when the appellant/defendant has called for the tender in regard to supply of 15 Nos. 3. Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.4,27,995.42 with 18% interest per annum together with costs? 17. Point No.1 – The respondent/plaintiff in para 9 of the plaint has averred that cause of action for the suit has arisen when the appellant/defendant has called for the tender in regard to supply of 15 Nos. of 125 KVA Diesel Generators sets and on 30.12.1983 when the respondent/plaintiff filed its tender and subsequently when the same has been accepted and confirmed by the respondent/plaintiff in its letter dated 15.03.1984 accepting the decisions and acceptances taken at the meeting between the parties and on various dates when the supplies have been made by the respondent/plaintiff which has been duly acknowledged by the appellant/defendant and on 30.08.1985 when payments have been made by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff by cheques and moreover, on 04.02.1986 when further cheque has been sent by the appellant/defendant to respondent/plaintiff and on 08.09.1986 when the payment has been made by the appellant/defendant by cheque and on 04.09.1988 when the appellant/defendant has denied further claim made by the respondent/plaintiffs and that cause of action further has arisen at Bombay where the appellant/defendant has its office and also at Madras where the payments have been made by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff which have been credited in he respondent/plaintiffs bank at Madras and also agreed to between the parties that the jurisdiction in regard to the contract is put at Madras. 18. Per Contra, the appellant/defendant in para 9 of its written statement has taken a plea that the suit ought to have been filed in the High Court of Bombay as the High Court at Madras does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the appellant/defendant is not aware about the Application No.4053 of 1989 whereby the respondent/plaintiff has obtained leave to sue the appellant/defendant at Madras. 19. The term cause of action has a settled meaning in Law. In a limited sense, it means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In a wider sense, it means the essential conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself in the considered opinion of this Court. In a limited sense, it means the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or the immediate occasion for the action. In a wider sense, it means the essential conditions for the maintenance of the suit, including not only the infraction of the right, but the infraction coupled with the right itself in the considered opinion of this Court. However, the term cause of action refers to every fact by which it will be necessary for the plaintiff to establish, if traversed, in order to support his claim to the judgment of a Court of Law. It is to be noted that every fact which has to be proved as distinguished from every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact comprises cause of action. In short, the cause of action speaks of the circumstances forming the infraction of the right or immediate occasion for the action. Significantly, a cause of action in a suit has no reference to the defence taken in the suit nor the same is related to the evidence by which the cause of action has been established. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a Court of Law relating to a contract matter will depend on the situs of the contract and the cause of action arising through other related factors. A cause of action will also include some act done by a defendant inasmuch as in the absence of an act, no cause of action will possibly accrue. Added further, it is not confined the actual infringement of right sued on, but will include all the material facts on which it rests. Ordinarily, acceptance of an offer and its intimation results in a contract and therefore a suit can be laid in a Court within whose jurisdiction the acceptance has been communicated. The performance of a contract is part of cause of action an a suit in respect of breach can always be filed at the place where the contract would have been performed or its performance has been completed. In case of repudiation of a contract, a suit can be filed where the repudiation is received and it is a place where the suit will lie. In the present case on hand the respondent/plaintiff has filed Application No.4053/1989 before the High Court of Madras and has obtained leave to sue the appellant/defendant at Madras, and this has become final. In case of repudiation of a contract, a suit can be filed where the repudiation is received and it is a place where the suit will lie. In the present case on hand the respondent/plaintiff has filed Application No.4053/1989 before the High Court of Madras and has obtained leave to sue the appellant/defendant at Madras, and this has become final. Continuing further, this Court is of the considered view that the part of the cause of action has arisen at Madras, where the payments have been made to the respondent/plaintiff by the appellant/defendant and the said payments have been credited into the respondent/plaintiffs bank at Madras and therefore, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiffs on the basis of cause of action is perfectly maintainable in the eye of law and the same is answered accordingly. 20. Point No.2 - The appellant/defendant in para 9 of the written statement has categorically stated that the last payment has been made on 08.09.1986 and that the respondent/plaintiff should have filed the present suit on or before 07.09.1989. At this stage, this Court on perusal of the plaint filed earlier on the original side of this Court comes to the clear conclusion that the suit has been filed on 05.09.1989 (as seen from the round seal of this Court affixed on the plaint wherein the date of receipt of the plaint is mentioned as 5th September 1989) and inasmuch as the suit has been filed within 3 years from the last date of payment viz., on 08.09.1986, and the same is not barred by the Law of Limitation and the point is answered accordingly. 21. Point No.3 – The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant urges before this Court that the trial Court has not seen that the appellant/defendant is entitled to deduct the penalty suffered on account of delayed supply made by the respondent/plaintiff and further it has failed to appreciate the evidence of witness DW.1 and as a matter of fact the trial Court has committed an error in accepting the total amount of Rs.15,17,739.83 and in any event the claim of interest of 18% per annum ought to have been rejected by the trial Court and therefore prays for allowing the appeal to promote substantial cause of justice. 22. 22. It is apt to refer to the evidence of PW.1 that he is the proprietor of the respondent/plaintiffs and that the appellant/defendant has requested them to supply Generator machines and in this regard the appellant/defendant has advertised for the tender and they have given their Application on 30.12.1983 and moreover, his company has agreed to supply 15 KVA Diesel Generators and the letter issued by his company is Ex.A1 dated 30.12.1983 and after discussing with the appellant/defendant an agreement, Ex.A2 dated 15.03.1984 has been entered into between them and as agreed the respondent/plaintiff has supplied 8 KVA Generators, but the appellant/defendant has not paid the money towards the said machines and since the appellant/defendant has paid the money belatedly the respondent/plaintiff has incurred bank expense, interest payment and transport expense and as per letter dated 04.04.1984 Ex.B1 agreement the respondent/plaintiff company has supplied 8 KVA Generators and the said Generators has been delivered at Mangalore Yard and the respondent/plaintiff has rectified the defects as pointed out by the engineer of the appellant/defendant and as per Ex.A3 letter dated 10.07.1986 the appellant/defendant has accepted the 8 Generators sets supplied by the appellant/defendant. But in regard to the supply of 7 Generator sets the appellant/defendant has canceled the agreement and as per Ex.A6 letter dated 110. 1986 the appellant/defendant has enclosed a Cheque No.712674 dated 08.09.1986 for Rs.41,273.78 issued infavour of the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant has written a letter, Ex.A13 dated 08.09.1988 to the respondent/plaintiff and as per suit the appellant is due to sum of Rs.4,27,9942. 23. PW.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that from the date 24.04.1984 within 3 weeks the respondent/plaintiff has to supply the generator sets and the first 5 sets as per Ex.B1 agreement has to be supplied before 25.06.1984 and that the respondent/plaintiff has not supplied the same and that the appellant/defendant through telegram has informed about the money details and that the respondent/plaintiff has rectified two defects in the generator sets supplied by it. 24. DW.1 (Additional General Manager, Legal) of the appellant/defendant in his evidence has deposed that as per Ex.B1 agreement dated 04.04.1984 the respondent/plaintiff has not supplied the goods properly and therefore Ex.B2 telegram has been issued by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff and Ex.B3 is the cancelation of agreement send by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent/plaintiff. DW.1 in his cross-examination has specifically stated that he is not aware about the non-functioning of the generator sets supplied by the respondent/plaintiff and that totally there is a balance of Rs.13,87,916.63 and there is a balance of Rs.1,93,934.60 and the appellant/defendant has to pay interest at 18% and it is incorrect to state that as per respondent/plaintiffs account there is a balance of Rs.4,27,995.42 and that the said amount has to be paid by the appellant/defendant. 25. In Ex.A1 letter dated 30.12.1983 the respondent/plaintiff has addressed the appellant/defendant inter-alia stating that they are glad to quote their rate for the supply of Diesel generator set as per the General terms and conditions, technical specification, price schedule, previous experience, pamphlet, annexure-A etc. It is relevant to point out that in Ex.A1 letter dated 30.12.1983 in annexure – A, under the caption earnest money deposit, the respondent/plaintiff has mentioned as follows; "Due to the year ending our bankers are not able to release the bank guarantee immediately, since time is very short. We assure you that we can produce the bank guarantee in the middle of the January or whenever you want after 10th January. Please accept our offer." 26. In Ex.A2 letter dated 15.03.1984 of the respondent/plaintiff addressed to the Commercial Manager of the appellant/defendant it is inter-alia mentioned that the respondent/plaintiff has been pleased to confirm the tender as under; 1. Delivery Schedule: Five sets will be delivered after 3weeks from the date of receipt of your technically and commercially clear Order in writing. Subsequently five sets shall be delivered every week. As a very special case we agree to dispatch the material to Mangalore on FREIGHT PAID basis in the event of the complete order being placed on us. 2. Penalty Clause: We agree to your standard penalty clause subject to force majeure conditions and other unforeseen circumstances beyond our control and a grace period of one week from the above delivery schedule confirmed by us. 3. Payment: We are agreeable to the following special terms of payment: a) Advance is not required. b) 90% against dispatch documents/Proforma Invoice and the balance 10% against commissioning. c) In case the Trolleys are delivered separately payment for the same shall be claimed subsequently. 1. Performance Guarantee: We confirm that the Original test certificate and the Guarantee Certificate from the Original Manufacturers shall be submitted by us. b) 90% against dispatch documents/Proforma Invoice and the balance 10% against commissioning. c) In case the Trolleys are delivered separately payment for the same shall be claimed subsequently. 1. Performance Guarantee: We confirm that the Original test certificate and the Guarantee Certificate from the Original Manufacturers shall be submitted by us. We are also agreeable to issue a performance guarantee for 2 ½% of the total value of the order. 2. Testing & Commissioning: We shall depute our Engineer for testing and commissioning at your Mangalore Yard freeof cost. However, the necessary arrangements to provide water, power, gate passes, diesel, power and cable connections shall be made available by your goodselves. Inspection shall be carried out by your Authorised Representatives in the presence of our Engineers immediately on arrival/commissioning of the material at site. 1. Taxes: Deliveries to Mangalore shall be covered under E-1 Transactions. Hence 4% C.S.T only shall be applicable. However, in case of deliveries are required at any other Yard/Sites in and around Bombay, Octroi Duty shall be charged at actuals. 2. Anti-Vibration Mounting: As advised by the Engine Manufacturers, M/s. Kirloskar Cummins Ltd., Dunlop make Anti-Vibration Mounts/Pads are recommended for use in between Gen Sets & Trolley. These Anti-Vibration Mountings could facilitate in floor mounting also. We could arrange to deliver these optional extra mounts alongwith the Gen sets at a nominal price of Rs.745/1 each in ready to use condition duly fabricated as per recommended specifications. 3. Trolley: a) Delivery: Since the Trolley Design and Structure has to be approved by the Manufacturers, we could arrange to manufacture and supply the said trolleys as under: i) 5 Nos. within 6 weeks. ii)5 Nos. every week subsequently. This shall however not affect the Performance or Commissioning of the Gen sets. b) Pnematic Trolley: In case required by your goodselves, we can arrange to supply the Pnematic Trolley with DUNLOP make Pnematic Type Tyres and Axles complete of ADV Type with Tow Bar arrangements and Canopy. The cost shall be Rs.26,970/- per trolley. 27. In Ex.A3 letter dated 10.07.1986 the appellant/defendants Assistant Manager (OPS) addressed to the Deputy General Manager, Mangalore Yard, Division of Mazagon Dock Ltd., New Mangalore Port Trust, Penambur has inter-alia stated that the party hasapplied altogether 8 Nos. The cost shall be Rs.26,970/- per trolley. 27. In Ex.A3 letter dated 10.07.1986 the appellant/defendants Assistant Manager (OPS) addressed to the Deputy General Manager, Mangalore Yard, Division of Mazagon Dock Ltd., New Mangalore Port Trust, Penambur has inter-alia stated that the party hasapplied altogether 8 Nos. sets on different times and out of 8 sets, six sets were supplied with trolley and subsequently antivibrational mounting were also provided for these six sets only. Next two sets from party were supplied with trolley but without antivibration mountings and that they have canceled the order for balance 7 Nos. sets in view of partys failure to supply the material etc., and that the number of problems were developed during warranty period of DG sets and the anti vibrational mounting provided for 6 sets were not useful and since none of the trolleys was working satisfactorily and in regard to the payment to the party, 90% amount was to be released against proforma invoice and balance 10% on submission of performance bank gurantee of 10% validity for 12 months from commissioning of D.G.sets and it was decided to impose penalty of 5% and also to encash performance guarantee of 5% due to their unsatisfactory execution of order. However party had not submitted any performance bank gurantee and therefore, while releasing balance payment (10%) above amounts (5%+5%) have been deducted from various bills of party and that the party has informed that all the 8 sets supplied by them were working satisfactorily during warranty period of 1 year from date of commissioning and release balance payment of 5% because warranty period has expired long back and therefore requested to clarify and confirm that Mangalore Yard have not incurred any expenses towards repair/replacement of damaged/non working parts during warranty period of each set and if any expenses have been incurred the same may please be intimated to in case of each set and this would enable us to reconsider the case and resolve the matter regarding balance payment of 5% to be given to party after deduction of expenses incurred by Mangalore Yard. 28. In Ex.A4 of respondent/plaintiff letter dated 18.07.1986 addressed to the appellant/defendants The Deputy General Manager (Commercial), M/s. Mazagon Dock Ltd., Bombay it is mentioned that the respondent/plaintiffs company has supplied with trolly of 8 Nos. of which 6 Nos. 28. In Ex.A4 of respondent/plaintiff letter dated 18.07.1986 addressed to the appellant/defendants The Deputy General Manager (Commercial), M/s. Mazagon Dock Ltd., Bombay it is mentioned that the respondent/plaintiffs company has supplied with trolly of 8 Nos. of which 6 Nos. were supplied with Antivibration Mounting of Dunlop and the balance 2 sets mountings were supplied only due to the discrepancy and non receipt of payment for the above first supplies and so far there is no complaint about the Mountings from you or from Mangalore yard at any time etc., and that the performance guarantee is only for the manufacturing defects, whatever complaints they have received from the sites at the time of commissioning they have attended and rectified the defects to the satisfaction and no complaints have been received last one year and there is no question of deduction and any amount in their account and from the very beginning they are not getting payment as per the purchase order condition and that they have incurred a heavy loss by way of interest and traveling expenses to get the payment and therefore requested to release all their payment without any deduction and penalty immediately without further delay. 29. In Ex.A6 letter dated 110. 1986 the appellant/defendant has informed the respondent/plaintiff that they have enclosed a Cheque No.712674 dated 08.09.1986 for Rs.41,273.78/- issued in favour of the respondent/plaintiff towards balance payment against the Invoice No.119 dated 010. 1984, 124 dated 010. 1984, 406-411 dated 20.04.1985, and 174-175 dated 20.04.1985. 30. In Ex.A8 letter dated 14.07.1987 of the respondent/plaintiff addressed to the appellant/defendant, it is inter-alia stated that the respondent/plaintiff has submitted in person the bank guarantee dated 18.08.1985 at the appellants Bombay Office, but they refused to accept and the copy of the bank guarantee is enclosed and because of this they have to incure lot of expenses and in regard to the Anti Vibrational Mountings the respondent/plaintiff explained that immediately on the purchase order they have written to you clearly that the antivibration charges Rs.745/-is for only 1 No. and for the one Generator 10 Nos. required vide their letter dated 15.03.1984 and requested the appellant/defendant to make necessary arrangement in their records etc., and now the appellant/defendant are writing that they will pay only Rs.745/-for 10 Nos. etc., and the respondent/plaintiffs price is Rs.745/- for 1 No. and for 60 Nos. required vide their letter dated 15.03.1984 and requested the appellant/defendant to make necessary arrangement in their records etc., and now the appellant/defendant are writing that they will pay only Rs.745/-for 10 Nos. etc., and the respondent/plaintiffs price is Rs.745/- for 1 No. and for 60 Nos. Rs.44,700/- should be paid etc., and in regard to penalty the respondent/defendant mentions that the delay in execution is mainly because of adverse weather condition in Mangalore. Because of the the continuous heavy rain they could not do any assembly work in time and secondly, the respondent/plaintiff Trolley supplier factory was under strike and delay happened in the commissioning the machines and thirdly, the late payment hampered the schedules very badly and the 2 Nos. Alternators dispatched to Mangalore vide L.R.No.206-63726 dated 04.05.1984 was taken back after heavy interest loss demurrage and lorry freight. In regard to the payment to the appellant claim that 5% will be deducted due to poor performance is out of the agreement and not at all acceptable and further, the delay is not wantedly made and it is purely unforeseen and beyond the respondent/plaintiffs control and subject to force majeure condition only and therefore, has requested the appellant to waive the penalty and release the pending payment immediately and expect a favourable reply with all pending payments with interest on or before 30.07.1987. 31. In Ex.B1 agreement dated 04.04.1984 the appellant/defendant has informed the respondent/plaintiff to the effect that it has confirmed their Order No. No.OP/HING/CAP/M 13 dated 30.03.1994 for the 15 Nos. of 125 KVA Diesel Generating sets as per the terms and conditions stipulated thereunder. In the said agreement it is mentioned that "the price for each DG set as described above and detailed in the Annexure – I hereto shall be Rs.1,84,669.50 (Rupees One lakh, eighty four thousand, six hundred, sixty nine and fifty paise only) P.O.R Mangalore Yard and thus the total price for 15 Nos. of DG set will be Rs.27,70,042.50 (Rupees twenty seven lakhs, seventy thousand, fourty two and fifty paise only) also it is stated that price shall be fixed and confirmed until delivery of all the units and under the caption B Taxes it is mentioned as follows: i. Sales Tax – For delivery at Mangalore, there will be a central sales tax at 40 against form C to be paid extra. For delivery in Maharashtra. ii. For delivery in Maharashtra. ii. Excise duty – included in the price. iii. Octroi – as duplicable. Further in regard to the delivery of the units it is mentioned as follows: i. First five units will be delivered 3 weeks from the receipt of order. ii. 4th Week – five more sets. iii. 5th week – Balance 5 sets. iv. Trolley – The trolley shall be be supplied as follows:- 5 Nos. within 6 weeks of order and subsequently 5 Nos. every week. However, this should not affect the performance or commissioning of the DG sets. Continuing further in the said Ex.B1 agreement the clause No.4 Liquidity Damage speaks as follows: "In case of delay in delivery a stipulated in clause (3), a penalty at the rate of ½% of the contracted goods per week or part thereof subject to a maximum of 5% will be leviable on you. In such a case, your invoice should deduct this penalty and be raised accordingly. However, there will be a grace period of one week for levying the penalty." Clause 5 refers to terms of payment which runs thus: "A) 90% payment will be made against the presentation of the following dispatch documents:- i) Consignment note. ii) Invoice showing the price on FOR Mangalore basis and a separate packing list. iii) Performing Bank Guarantee for 5% of the Contract value. iv) Test Certificates and guarantee cards for Engine and Alternators which is issued by the manufacturers. The above set of documents must also accompany the consignment. B) Balance 10% will be released with successful commissioning and a satisfactory report from our Yard Personnel." 32. Importantly Clause 7 in Ex.B1 agreement refers to performance agreement that the respondent/plaintiff shall furnish a bank guarantee for 5% of the contract value towards the performance of the machine valid for a period of 18 months from the date of delivery or 12 months from the date of commissioning. 33. The last Clause No.11 in the agreement under the head Force Majeure refers to that the respondent/plaintiff shall not be liable for any delay or default in delivery arising out of force majeure such as fire, civil disturbance, explosions acts ruling of any administrative agencies, Boards or Courts having jurisdiction, acts of god or similar events affecting the respondent/plaintiff. 34. The last Clause No.11 in the agreement under the head Force Majeure refers to that the respondent/plaintiff shall not be liable for any delay or default in delivery arising out of force majeure such as fire, civil disturbance, explosions acts ruling of any administrative agencies, Boards or Courts having jurisdiction, acts of god or similar events affecting the respondent/plaintiff. 34. In Ex.B2 telegram issued by the appellant/defendant Commercial Manager addressed to the PW.1/proprietor of respondent company it is mentioned that; 1. We regret to inform that to-date not even one generator sets has been commissioned. 2. Number of materials have been received at Mangalore Yard on piece meal basis. 3. Consignee of the item instead of being recorded as Project Manager, Mangalore Yard it has been shown as Sree Power Agencies which is causing considerable confusion and difficulty in clearing items by our Mangalore Office. The present position on deliveries as known to us is as follows: "Cumming Engines – 7 Nos.- L.R.No.21-101 and 9-006 thru 9-0010 Dtd. 4-5-1984 Crompton Alternators–6 Nos.-L.R. No.27691 and 68723dtd 30.4.84" 1. Further in Ex.B2 it is stated that, "the trolleys (15 No.)KT) + reported to have been dispatched vide L.R.No.2-002 and 2-005 dated 11.05.1984 have still not been received in our yard at Mangalore. Request matter be taken up with the carriers and present position intimated to us by return. 2. Further it is stated that the position as seen from the above is far from satisfactory and would therefore request that immediate action be taken to gather all items on priority and arrange commissioning of 6 Nos. Generators latest by 7th July 1984 and it is also that in the event of failure by you to expedite matters we would be constrained to encash the performance bank guarantee and that further deliveries in respect of Gen sets/components should be made on Door Delivery basis, consigned to Mangalore as indicated in para 10 of our order. 3. As a matter of fact in Ex.B2 telegram the appellant/defendant company has been informed by the respondent/plaintiff company inter-alia to the effect that, "... now we are doing our level best to commission delivered set and has agreed by commercial manager you have to arrange to release the payment for the pending bills immediately on receipt of the payment we are making further dispatches. You are requested to extend the delivery period. now we are doing our level best to commission delivered set and has agreed by commercial manager you have to arrange to release the payment for the pending bills immediately on receipt of the payment we are making further dispatches. You are requested to extend the delivery period. The delay is only due to payment and non availability of material and this will be explained to you." 35. In Ex.A10 respondent/plaintiffs Advocate notice dated 24.05.1988 addressed to the appellant/defendants it is among other things mentioned that a notice was sent on 111. 1987 for which the appellant/defendant sent a reply stating that it required some time to process and reply to maintain the business relationship the respondent/plaintiff has waited till date but the respondent/plaintiff has not received neither the pending payment nor reply and therefore the respondent/plaintiff has been left with no option except to proceed with legal action and a final reminder is sent granting time up to 30.05.1988 to the appellant/defendant in sending the payment as mentioned in the notice dated 111. 1987, ad if the matter is not settled within 30.05.1988 the respondent/plaintiff will be compelled to take action without any further reference. 36. The appellant/defendant has sent a reply dated 27.05.1988 for the letter Ex.A11 dated 24.05.1988 stating that in the absence of full particulars such as Purchase Order, Invoice and Bill Copy, it is very difficult for us to verify the details of claim mentioned in the letter dated 111. 1987, and therefore, requested the respondent/plaintiffs lawyer to forward a copy of the purchase order and invoice to the appellant/defendant so as to enable them to trace the connected papers and verify the claim and it is also informed that this request of the appellant/defendant shall not amount to acceptance of respondent/plaintiffs claim, which will be looked into on merits upon receipt of the particulars. 37. 37. In Ex.A13 rejoinder notice dated 08.09.1988 of the appellant/defendant addressed to the respondent/plaintiffs lawyer it is mentioned inter-alia that the price for each DG set inclusive of all items dealt in annexure – 1 is Rs.1,84,669.50 only for Mangalore Yard and that the respondent/plaintiff had supplied only 8 sets of DG sets that too after a prolonged delay in supply erection and commissioning etc., and that the respondent/plaintiff is entitled for a total sum of Rs.14,77,356/- only in addition to 4% sales tax theron; however, subject to other deduction as per the provisions of the purchase order dated 04.06.1984 and further that the respondent/plaintiff has raised various bills and that the appellant/defendant had made on account payments accordingly and a statement showing the details of the bill received from the respondent/plaintiffs, advances (on a/c payment) paid towards the respondent/plaintiffs bill recoveries made as per the terms and conditions of P.O. Dated 04.04.1984 is enclosed herewith and all the respondent/plaintiffs contentions which are contrary and inconsistent to what ever stated herein above are denied and inspite of the same if the respondent/plaintiffs choose to adopt legal action the same shall be defended at respondent/plaintiffs own risks as to costs and consequences arising thereto. 38. It is relevant to point out that in Ex.B3 cancellation of agreement letter sent by the appellant/defendant addressed to the respondent/plaintiff it is mentioned as follows; "We regret the DG sets have still not been commissioned. We will encash the BG and all your payments will be stopped from immediate effect unless the same things are commissioned immediately. Also it is understood that you are sending the items on a piece meal basis which is creating a lot of confusion and also it consigned to yourself in that case please ensure one of your personnel. Be present at your yard to receive the items and handover to our people. Regards Mazdock + + + 10,781 WE WW" Continuing further, in Ex.B4 reminder notice issued by the appellant/defendant addressed to the respondent/plaintiff it is inter-alia mentioned as follows; "Despite our repeated requests/remindes to commission the DG sets, it is understood that non of the sets has been commissioned yet repeat no DG set is commissioned and handed over to our people. Also no trolley has reached the site as yet. Also no trolley has reached the site as yet. This is a very sad state of affair which will be most seriously viewed against this order and any further delay++ dealings. In view of this (AA) we are withholding all further (BB) will go ahead in encashing your performance bank guarantee if all the supplied sets not commissioned latest by 14th July 1984. (CC) balance order to be canceled. You are required to call on us with all the data regarding the PCT of work completed and the present situation immediately to sort out the matter. Regards Mazdock + + + /71 39. In Ex.B5 reply letter issued by the respondent/plaintiff addressed to the appellant/defendant it is stated thus, "Please wait In Mangalore one set started. Next one ready. Continuous rain going on. No shed facility available. Please arrange for atleast one shed and some tarpaulin urgently to avoid damages to electrical windings etc. Trying our level best to commissioning all the sets within a week time provided shed facility available. Due to rain in open yard nothing moving. Kindly do the needful. Regards Balamurugesh. 11 3606 MDOP IN OK NOTED TKS" 40. In Ex.B6 letter dated 19.07.1984 addressed by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff company it is stated that; "It is understood from Mangalore Yard that the new generators are not giving rated output of 125 KVA no voltage regulation line voltage drops B-Y as much as 80V. Quality of welding a affected. Also our work is hampered as other rectifiers have to be switched off when sub-arc M/c is used. Your site supervisor have been informed of the problems. Pls rectify the above and put the DG sets into operation properly." 41. Added further, in Ex.B7 telegram dated 27.07.1984 issued by the appellant/defendant to the respondent/plaintiff it is mentioned as follows; "It is understood from Mangalore Yard, that you have not yet commissioned any of the six gensets at site. Also the trolleys are not available in the yard. The delay is causing serious problem. Your excuse of shed facility not available to assemble is baseless as the shed and tarpaulin made available to assemble one set at a time to you from the very beginning. Also the trolleys are not available in the yard. The delay is causing serious problem. Your excuse of shed facility not available to assemble is baseless as the shed and tarpaulin made available to assemble one set at a time to you from the very beginning. Your representative must arrive here to discuss and sort out the problems latest by P.M. 30th July 1984 failing which we will proceed with encashing your bank guarantee since you have failed to fulfill the terms of the contract. Regards Mazdock + + + 27. 84/1502/SD/OPS+ 41 6259 SPA IN 11 3606 MDOP IN 42. In Ex.B8 telegram dated 02.08.1984 addressed by the appellant/defendant company it is mentioned as follows; "AA) Our Mr.Tripathi is at Mangalore Yard and he has observed that trolleys supplied by you do not have any shock absorption arrangement. Leaf springs is not provided in trolleys due to which whole assembly will vibrate. As the engine cannot be run continuously in this condition, you will have to provide anti-vibrational mounting, free of cost, for smooth running or modification in trolleys is required to be carried out and trolleys have to be certified by cummins authority for non. Requirement of additional anti-vibration mounting. BB) He has also observed that the diesel tank which you have replaced does not have proper filling and breathing arrangement. 15 Nos. of additional batteries and 15 sets of cal+ cable sets have not yet reached to Mangalore. Pls arrange to despatch all these accessories immediately at Mangalore Yard and ensure that these accessories including trolleys are cleared from transporters at Mangalore Yard. CC) Pls refer discussion held in my office on 30.7.84, as agreed you will complete installation/commissioning of 6 DG sets with trolley by 15th August and balance sets by 8th Sept. 1984. Failing which we will go ahead in encashing your performance guarantee. Regards Mazdock" 43. In Ex.B9 reply letter dated 22.04.1987 issued by the respondent/plaintiff addressed to the appellant/defendant it is stated as follows; "We regret to inform you inspite of our repeated requisitions to release the payment for 52 Nos. Antivibration Mountings @ Rs.745/-+CST 4% and 10% payment for the supply of 8 Nos. 125 KVA Generators, we have neither received the payments nor any correspondence. We are requesting you to release the pending payments as mentioned below before 30th of this month, since we are in need of funds. Antivibration Mountings @ Rs.745/-+CST 4% and 10% payment for the supply of 8 Nos. 125 KVA Generators, we have neither received the payments nor any correspondence. We are requesting you to release the pending payments as mentioned below before 30th of this month, since we are in need of funds. The details of the pending payment. Engine : Rs. 99,000.00 Alternator : Rs. 46,000.00 Control Panel : Rs. 9,000.00 Diesel Tank : Rs. 1,000.00 Batteries : Rs. 3,000.00 Trolley : Rs. 22,924.00 Antivibration Mountings : Rs. 745.00 Base Plate : Rs. 3,000.00 Rs.1,84,699.50 ========== C.S.T. @ 4% Extra :Rs.15,36,450.20 For 8 Nos. Generators :Rs.15,36,450.20 Pending 10% value of the order: Rs. 1,53,645.00 ADD: For Antivibration Mountings (10 Nos. of Mountings provided each of the 6 Generators at the cost of Rs.745/- per each Mountings) & C.S.T. @ 4% Extra) Total of 52 Nos. @ Rs.745/- and .C.S.T. @ 4% : Rs. 40,289.60 Total Due Rs. 1,93,934.60 ========== Thanking you, Yours faithfully, for SREE POWER AGENCIES s.d/- P. K. Balamurugesh" 44. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of DW1 in a proper perspective and this has resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant DW1 in his evidence in cross-examination has stated that there is a total due of Rs.13,87,916.63 and that a sum of Rs.1,93,934.60 is due for which they have to pay 18% interest and it is incorrect to state that as per respondents/plaintiffs account there is a due amount of Rs.4,27,995.42 and hence they have to pay the said amount as per the plaint. Expatiating his argument, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submits that the trial Court has wrongly construed the evidence of DW1 to the effect that he has admitted that the appellant/defendant company has a total balance due of Rs.13,98,914.63 and in fact, the trial Court has not taken into account of the fact that DW1 in his cross-examination has stated that it is incorrect to state as per respondents/plaintiffs account there is a due of Rs.4,27,995.42 and as per Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act a statement to operate as admission ought to be clear in its meaning and indeed the evidence of DW1 ought to have been considered by the trial Court as a whole and in any event the stray admission in DW1s evidence that there is a total balance due of Rs.13,87,916.63 cannot be construed as an admission and therefore the observation of the trial Court in this regard in its judgment has to be necessarily set aside by this Court to prevent an aberration of justice. 45. It is to be borne in mind that an admission must be used either as whole or not at all in the eye of law. No doubt, an admission is a substantive evidence though it is open to a person who made the admission to show that the fact admitted is not correct. To put it precisely, an admission must be Clear, Certain, Definite, not ambiguous or confused or a vague one in the considered opinion of this Court. 46. Continuing further, the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant draws the attention of this Court to Ex. A13 letter dated 08.09.1988 of the appellant/defendant addressed to the respondent/plaintiffs lawyer wherein it is specifically mentioned that a statement showing the details of bill received from the respondent/plaintiffs advances (on a/c. Payment) paid towards respondent/plaintiffs bills, recoveries made as per the terms conditions of P.O. Dated 04.04.1984 and the said statement mentioning the details of payment are as follows; STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT 1. Total billed amount Rs.15,76,739.83 * Less amount charged in excess in bill No.124 dt.10. 84 Rs. 40,289.60 Net amount payable Rs.15,36,450.23 =========== Payment made 1. Advance paid Rs.13,26,640.85 2. Balance amount paid Rs. 41,273.78 Total payment Rs.13,87,914.63 =========== Contractual Deductions 1. 5% against performance Bank Guarantee Rs. 73,867.80 2. 5% against penalty Rs. 73,867.80 3. Deduction agreed by party as per commissioning report. Rs. 84 Rs. 40,289.60 Net amount payable Rs.15,36,450.23 =========== Payment made 1. Advance paid Rs.13,26,640.85 2. Balance amount paid Rs. 41,273.78 Total payment Rs.13,87,914.63 =========== Contractual Deductions 1. 5% against performance Bank Guarantee Rs. 73,867.80 2. 5% against penalty Rs. 73,867.80 3. Deduction agreed by party as per commissioning report. Rs. 800.00 Total Payment + Deduction Rs.15,36,450.23 ========== *Please refer our Regd.A.D. Letter No.OP/MY/HNG/CAP/M 13 dt.20.05.1987 regarding excess amount charged in your bill No.124 dt.010. 1984. 47. Moreover, it is the stand of the appellant/defendant that the respondent/plaintiff has not given the performance guarantee/bank guarantee and also that the respondent/plaintiff has agreed to the penalty clause in the B1 agreement dated 04.04.1984. A perusal of the Ex.B1 agreement shows that in clause 4 under the Liquidity Damage it is clearly mentioned that in case of delay in delivery as stipulated in Clause (3), a penalty at the rate of ½% of the contracted goods per week or part thereof subject to a maximum of 5% will be levied on the respondent/plaintiff and in such a case, the respondent/plaintiff should deduct this penalty and bill raised accordingly and there will be a grace period of one week for levying the penalty. Therefore, it is quite evident that Ex.B1 agreement dated 04.04.1984 has a penalty clause to which the respondent/plaintiff has agreed to in the considered opinion of this Court and the respondent/plaintiff in case of delay in delivery will have to incure a penalty as per clause 4 of the Ex.B1 agreement. 48. In regard to the contention that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the DW1 in entirety, in a real and proper perspective on going through the evidence of DW1 (Chief Legal Manager) of the appellant/defendant company, this Court is of the considered view that the statement of DW1 in cross-examination that there is a total due of Rs.13,87,916.63 is only a stray admission and not an admission as a whole in view of the fact that DW1 has specifically stated that it is incorrect to state that there is due of Rs.4,27,995.42 as per respondent/plaintiffs account etc., and as such the contra view taken by the trial Court is not correct in the considered opinion of this Court. 49. 49. As per Ex.B1 agreement dated 04.04.1984 the respondent/plaintiff has to furnish a Bank Guarantee for 5% of the contract value towards the performance of the machine valid for a period of 18 months from the date of delivery or 12 months from the date of commissioning and the same has not been given by the respondent/plaintiff and therefore the appellant/defendant has rightly forfeited a sum of Rs.73,867.80 from the total amount payable to the respondent/plaintiff in the considered opinion of this Court. 50. In the instant case on hand the respondent/plaintiff has filed Ex.A12 invoices (22 in No.) claiming in all a sum of Rs.15,76,739.83 from the appellant/defendant. The appellant/defendant on 08.09.1986 has paid a sum of Rs.41,273.78 by means of cheque and the same has been admitted by the respondent/plaintiff according to the appellant/defendant. In Ex.A13 letter together with the statement showing the details of payment made, it is mentioned that the total billed amount is Rs.15,76,739.83 and if a sum of Rs.40,289.60 is deducted towards the amount charged in Excess Bill No.124 dated 010. 1984 then the net amount payable comes to Rs.15,36,450.23 and the advance of Rs.13,46,640.85 has been paid by the appellant/defendant and the balance of Rs.41,273.78 has also been paid and therefore the total payment made is Rs.13,87,914.63 and the contractual deduction in regard to 5% against performance of Bank Guarantee comes to Rs.73,867.80 and 5% against penalty is Rs.73,867.50 and the deduction agreed by the respondent/plaintiff as per commissioning report is Rs.800/- and therefore, the total payment plus deduction comes to Rs.15,36,450.23 and therefore, it is the contention of the appellant/defendant side that appellant/defendant has paid all the amounts due to the respondent/plaintiff and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. However, in the present case on hand, that it is the clear admission of PW1 that from 24.04.1984 within three weeks they have to supply the generator sets to the appellant/defendant and as per Ex.B1 agreement dated 04.04.1984 the respondent/plaintiff ought to have supplied the first 5 sets before the date on 25.06.1984, but they have not supplied the same. Therefore, it is candidly clear that the respondent/plaintiff has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Ex.B1 agreement date 04.04.1984 and there has been a delay in commissioning of DG sets resulting in production loss to the appellant/defendant. Therefore, it is candidly clear that the respondent/plaintiff has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Ex.B1 agreement date 04.04.1984 and there has been a delay in commissioning of DG sets resulting in production loss to the appellant/defendant. Suffice it for this Court point out that, even though the respondent/plaintiff has marked Ex.A12 invoices to show that the amount claimed by the respondent/plaintiff is Rs.15,76,739.83 and in view of the fact that the respondent/plaintiff has marked Ex.A13 letter together with statement mentioning the details of payment made and the contractual deduction effected etc., as seen from Ex.A13 statement it is clear that the total payment together with deduction made by the appellant/defendant comes to Rs.15,36,450.23 and this Court accepts the Ex.A13 document in regard to the payment details and the contractual deductions made etc., by the appellant/defendant, and therefore, as per the calculation made by the appellant/defendant as per Ex.A13 letter along with statement, no other amount remains to be paid to the respondent/plaintiff by the appellant/defendant and therefore, the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to any amount much less to the claim of Rs.4,27,995.42 together with interest at 18% per annum etc.,(when there is no clause in Ex.B1 agreement dated 04.04.1984 in regard to the payment of 18% interest per annum between the parties) and the point is answered against the respondent/plaintiff accordingly. 51. In fine, for the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. Consequently the judgment and decree of the trial Court made in original suit No.6945 of 1996 dated 11.08.1997 are set aside and the suit is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal.