TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. versus N. RAJU REDDIAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 739 · Decided: 24-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. 
v. 
N. RAJU REDDIAR AND ANR. 
APRIL 24, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872-Ss. 91, 92-Written agreement-Proof of-Where 
agreement contains whole tenns of the contract-Parties not entitled to lead 
oral or other documentary evidence ascertaining intention of parties. 
A 
B 
c 
The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 
46,08,820 with interest alleging that the defendants· appellants invited 
tenders for transportation of iron and steel materials; that the Plaintiff 1 
submitted his tender, his offer was accepted and an agreement was entered 
into; that the plaintiffs carried the material and delivered the same at 
various destinations but when bills were submitted, the defendants instead D 
of making payments in accordance with the terms of the contract 
postponed the payment of the bills. 
The defendants in their written statement stated that the plaintiffs 
were not entitled to claim multi slab basis as the multi slab rates had never E 
been accepted and not covered by the agreement executed by the parties 
and the plaintiffs raised this issue only after the contract was over and 
that the plaintiffs had not delivered the materials correctly at some des· 
tinations. 
Single Judge of the High Court held that rates ,,;n have to be F 
calcnlated on single slab basis and not on multi slab basis and that the 
words in the letter enclosed to the tender form, written in ink as 'I have 
c1uoted my rates for each slab and add for every extra one and part thereof, 
were there at the time of submission of the tender but the expression 'for 
each slab' did not mean that the tender was not on multi slab basis and 
that the shortages alleged by the defendants had not been established. G 
While holding that there was considerable delay in the matter of payment 
of bills, the suit was decreed in part. In appeal the Division Bench of the 
High Court relying upon the hand written portion of the letter and the 
conduct of the Superintending Engineer in passing the plaintiff's bills on 
multi slab basis helct that the plaintiffs were entitled to freight charges on H 
739 
740 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A 
multi slab basis. Hence this appeal. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
The appellants contended that the hand written portion in the 
plaintill's letter was a subsequent interpolation; that the acceptance of the 
tender by the contractor indicated that it was on single slab basis; that the 
bills were submitted during the extended period of the contract which 
indicated an obvious illegal design and that passing of some bills by some 
of the Superintending Engineers on multi slab basis was not determinative 
of the terms and conditions of the contract particularly when the contract 
was a written one. 
The respondents urged that there was no issue on the question as to 
whether hand written portion was subsequently inserted; that after sub-
mission of the tender, the contractor explicitely expressed to have the work 
done on multi slab basis and that the defendants in fact accepted and acted 
on multi slab basis and that the single slab system was on the face of it 
wholly unreasonable. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The agreement between the parties was a written agree-
ment and therefore the parties were bound by the terms and conditions of 
the agreement. Once a contract is reduced to writing, by operation of 
Section 91 of the Evidence Act it is not open to any of the parties to seek 
to prove terms of the contract with reference to some oral or other 
documentary evidence to find out the intention of the parties. Under 
Section 92 of the Evidence Act where the written instrument appears to 
contain the whole terms of the contract then parties to the contract are 
F 
not entitled to lead any oral evidence to ascertain the terms of the contract. 
It is only when the written contract does not contain the whole of the 
agreement between the parties and there is any ambiguity then oral 
evidence is permissible to prove the other conditions which also must not 
be inconsistent with the written contract. In the instant case the plaintiffs 
being conscious of this position along with the tender appended a letter 
G and in that letter inserted certain terms by writing in ink to establish the 
case that the acceptance of the plaintiffs' tender would tantamount to the 
acceptance to the terms contained in the letter in which there was

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.