RAJAT KUMAR BHADRA Vs. SUPERCON ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal was complainant before the State Commission. His complaint was dismissed by the State Commission on the ground that there was no written agreement or contract between the parties and in the absence of such contract and without any evidence the Commission could not adjudicate upon the complaint.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the finding of the State Commission that there was no written agreement between the parties, was not legally correct. Of course, there was no formal agreement entered into between the parties where all terms and conditions settled between them were incorporated in one document but various documents placed on the record of the State Commission by the complainant spelt out the terms and conditions settled between the parties. Even valid and binding contract could come into existence by correspondence. The complainant was not given an opportunity to prove the terms which were settled between the parties and it has resulted into miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent contended that the finding arrived at by the State Commission was correct and called for no interference.

(3.) We have considered the relevant contentions of the parties. In our opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant has merit. It is well-settled law that if the transaction was contained in more than one document between the same parties, those documents must be read and interpreted together and they have same legal effect for all purpose as if they are one document. The terms and the conditions and the nature of the contract between the parties have to be ascertained from all the facts and circumstances of the case. We have seen certain documents which were placed on the file of the State Commission by the complainant. The State Commission has not discussed those documents. The State Commission ought to have examined the documents as to find out whether by reading and interpreting them together it constituted a valid and binding contract between the parties. From the impugned order we do not find any discussion regarding the documents on record, to this effect. In view of this, we hold that the State Commission committed a legal error in making an observation that in the absence of any agreement or contract, the State Commission was unable to entertain the complaint. The order of the State Commission is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the State Commission and remand the case to the State Commission for a fresh decision according to law. The State Commission will afford an opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence, if any. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.