(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO. 178 OF 2005 Madanlal s/o. Fulchand Agrawal, Age : 57 years, Occupation : Contractor, .. Appellant R/o. Mandi Salamatpur, (Original Dist. Raisen (M.P.) plaintiff) versus 1. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, A Corporate Body, having its office at Mercantile Bank Building, Fort, Bombay. 2. The Senior Power Station Superintendent, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Deep Nagar, Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. The Chief Station Superintendent, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, .. Respondents Deep Nagar, Bhusawal, (Original District : Jalgaon. defendants) ....................... Mr. L.V. Sangit, Advocate, holding for Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate, for the appellant. ........................ (2) CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 24TH MARCH 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. The decree in favour of the plaintiff, restricting the claim for Rs. 63,586.80 Paise, with the interest at rate of 6 % per annum, was carried by plaintiff, as he felt dissatisfied his entire claim being not entertained, to the learned District Judge, Jalgaon, in Regular Civil appeal No. 187 of 2001. The learned District Judge, by judgment dated 21st July 2003, did not agree to the plaintiff for additional amount and consequently, the Second Appeal. 3. The status of the plaintiff (appellant) to be a contractor of defendant, M.S.E.B., and acceptance of two tenders, namely, coal handling work at Deep Nagar Power Station, Bhusawal, for the period from 1-3-1979 to 28-2-1980, and another for loading and unloading of ash and slug for the period period from 1-10-1979 to 30-9-1980, is not in controversy. The plaintiff's bills are not honoured for coal handling contract. The defendant, according to him, got the (3) contract done by other agency. The plaintiff was asked to clean C.H.P. plant as the said work was unattended by another contractor. Its bills were not cleared by the defendant. 4. The contention, that the decree should have been with the interest at the rate of 12 % was also negatived by the first appellate court. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalgaon, has indeed allowed plaintiff's claim for Rs. 49,388.80 Paise towards coal handling, Rs. 10,885/- towards security deposited with the defendant and Rs. 3213/- for ash and slug loading. As stated earlier, the total claim allowed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), in favour of the plaintiff was Rs. 63,586.80 Paise. The application of interest at the rate of 6% per annum could not be said to be contrary to law, as the contract between plaintiff and defendant did not stipulate imposition of interest and particularly at 12 %. The conduct of the plaintiff in dealing with the defendant M.S.E.B. also demonstrates that he has exerted threats to stop the work by notice and consequently, the work to some extent was required to be taken from other agencies. The belated approach in dealing with the defendant, suffered M.S.E.B. to face demurrage charges of the railways. All these aspects were brought to the notice of the plaintiff from time to time, but there was not relentment in the plaintiff's attitude. The contention, that the plaintiff was entitled for Rs. 525.50 Paise towards cleaning of C.H.P. tank, Rs. 384/- towards (4) unauthorized deduction towards gate pass and also the damages, has been properly dealt with by the learned Judge of the first appellate court, who has evaluated the evidence and referred the same to negate plaintiff's assertion. 5. The Second Appeal does not project any formulation of substantial question of law. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/sa178