Documented running bills establish contractual dues absent proof of discrepancies in measurements, quantities, or rates.

The respondent, a contractor carrying out cladding and related work, was awarded work at Ambience Mall under a work order dated 23 March 2006.

The agreed payment terms provided for release of 80% against running or assessed bills, 10% on completion of a façade, and the remaining 10% on handover.

The contractor raised bills for work at the Multiplex/Platinum Block and Hotel Block and alleged that substantial sums remained unpaid.

The appellant company disputed the bills and asserted that the contractor had abandoned the work in August 2006 and had been paid in excess.

The trial court decreed ₹24,90,143.90 with pendente lite and future interest at 12% per annum, but dismissed the claim for machinery valued at ₹6 lakh.

The company appealed under Section 96 CPC.

1. Whether the contractor abandoned the project in August 2006, as alleged by the appellant

2. Whether the evidence supported the bills and the trial court’s determination of ₹24,90,143.90 as the outstanding amount

3. Whether the TDS certificate supported the respondent’s claim of liability

The appeal was brought under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides for an appeal from an original decree.

The court applied the parties’ contractual payment terms under the work order.

It also reasoned that, once the contractor had submitted and proved the running bills, the defendants had to establish that those bills did not correspond to the work executed; a correction to one bill did not, without further evidence, establish errors in later bills.

No judicial precedents were cited in the judgment.

The court rejected the abandonment defence because the appellant’s pleadings acknowledged that some work continued in September, its own account showed dealings into October, and a payment was made directly to the contractor’s labour on 21 October 2006.

The appellant also produced no site engineer or other evidence establishing that the billed work was not performed or left incomplete.

The contractor’s bills were supported by measurement records and weekly site reports, while the appellant identified no specific error in the later bills; the correction to the June bill did not prove that subsequent bills were inaccurate.

In calculating the balance, the court excluded ₹1,10,527 paid for the Hotel Block from the Multiplex/Platinum Block bill, leaving ₹24,90,143.90 due.

The TDS certificate was treated as corroborative of the liability, not as the sole basis for it.

The claim for ₹6 lakh for machinery had been dismissed by the trial court and was not the basis for the decree under appeal.

The pending applications were disposed of accordingly.