"9. Coming to the merits of the claims, as regards Claim No.1 for Rs.41,90,393/- towards the amount retained against escalation bill from the final bill, it is admitted case of the parties that the amount towards escalation on account of revision in prices of structural steel & reinforcement bars which was subject matter of Escalation Bill RA1 and RA5 were paid on 21.10.2014 and 03.11.2014 and, thereafter, at the time of payment towards final bill, the amount which had been so paid was deducted from the amount of the final bill. Later, on representation from the claimant, the respondent released a portion of the amount so retained from the final bill by carving out a distinction by the benchmark of a cut off date viz.30.01.2011, namely to the extent of allowing the escalation(said to be an act of indulgence on the part of the respondent) to the extent where drawings have been provided after 30.01.2011 and disallow the escalation to the extent where the drawings have been provided by 30.01.2011 being the date of 75% of the original CCD. While the Ld.Counsel for the claimant contended that there was no provision in the contract to make such a distinction, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent contended that there was no bar to the same and the said distinction benefited the claimant and such a view was taken on the representations of the claimant. In my considered view, while the contract did envisage payment of RA Bills to be on account and could be taken into consideration at the stage of payment of final bill, yet the provisions of the contract on which the respondent banks upon in support of its justification to initially deduct the amount from the final bill, and thereafter to extend a limited indulgence, in the manner stated here-in-
