for which payments were also made. Disputes arose between applicant and respondent and communications were exchanged. Shri Sawant submitted that in every communication, the understanding of the parties was even though a fresh work order was not signed or issued to applicant, the terms that governed the relationship between the parties is the work order dated 12th November 2009. Shri Sawant pointed out that even in the letter dated 2nd February 2016 from the advocates for respondent no.2, it is stated “………………. without even completing the works as per the commercial terms set out in a work contract dated 12th November 2009 (“work contract”) ”. Shri Sawant also pointed out to paragraphs 3(d), (f), (i), (h), (o) and paragraph 4 of the said letter dated 2nd February 2016 and submitted that the written agreement between the parties was the work contract. Shri Sawant also relied upon the subsequent communications from the advocates for respondent particularly Exh.'J', i.e., letter dated 17th March 2016, to submit that respondent accepted that the work contract dated 12th November 2009 that was entered into between applicant and BMM was the governing contract. Shri Sawant relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Govind Rubber Ltd. Vs. M/s. Louids Dreyfus Commodities Asia P. Ltd.1 to submit that an agreement, even if not signed by the parties, can be spelt out from the correspondence exchanged between the parties and it is the duty of the Court to construe 1 2015(6) All MR 485 (S.C.)
