There was an unwritten law among the Porbandar Memons living in South Africa that death should be preferred to bankruptcy. It was impossible for Tyeb Sheth to pay down the whole sum of about 30,000 and costs. He meant to pay not a pie less than the amount, and he did not want to be declared bankrupt. So, there was only one way. Dada Abdulla should allow him to pay in moderate installments. He was equal to the occasion, and granted Tyeb Sheth installments spread over a big long period. It was more difficult for me to secure the concession of payment by installments than to get the parties to agree to arbitration. But both were happy over the result, and both rose in the public estimation. My joy was boundless. I had learnt the practice of law. I had learnt to find out the better side of human nature and to enter men’s hearts. I realized that the true function of a lawyer was to unite parties driven as under. The lesson was so indelibly burnt into me that a large part of my time during the twenty years of my practice as a lawyer was occupied in bringing about private compromises of hundreds of cases. I lost nothing thereby-not even money, certainly not my soul.” In our opinion, the lawyers should advise their clients to try for mediation for resolving the disputes, especially, where relationships, like family relationships, business relationships, are involved, otherwise, the litigation drags on for years and decades often ruining both the parties. Hence, the lawyers as well as litigants should follow Mahatma Gandhi’s advice in the matter and try for arbitration or mediation. This is also the purpose of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Let the matter be referred to the Bangalore Mediation Centre. The parties are directed to appear before the Bangalore Mediation Centre on 21 February, 2014. The next case is of an appellant-contractor, a partnership firm, engaged in the construction business, who was awarded a contract by the respondent-State Government for construction of a Dam. During the execution of the said work, the Executive Engineer incharge of the project, made certain additions, alterations and variations in respect of certain items of work and directed the appellant to carry out the same also. The appellant filed a consolidated statement of claims for the additional works. The trial court decreed the suit for Rs. 2 lacs with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization. However, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal of the employer-State Government and dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the plaintiff-contractor had accepted the amount as per final bill “under protest” without disclosing any real grievance on merits and it amounted to accepting the final bill without any valid objection and grievance. It further held that the conduct of the contractor in accepting the final bill and thereafter sending statutory notice and filing the suit for recovery of the differential amount was barred by the principle of estoppel. Aggrieved, the plaintiff contractor filed the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court held that “From various decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: (i) Merely because the contractor has issued “No Due Certificate”, if there is acceptable claim, the court cannot reject the same on the ground of issuance of “No Due Certificate”; (ii) Inasmuch as it is common that unless a discharge certificate is given in advance by the contractor, payment of bills are generally delayed, therefore, such a clause in the contract would not be an absolute bar to a contractor raising claims which are genuine at a later date even after submission of such “No-claim Certificate”; (iii) even after execution of full and final discharge voucher or receipt by one of the parties, if the said party is able to establish that he is entitled to further amount for which he is having adequate materials, he is not barred from claiming such amount merely because of acceptance of the final bill by mentioning “without prejudice” or by issuing ‘No Due Certificate’. In the instant case, it is true that when the final bill was submitted, the plaintiff had accepted the amount as mentioned in the final bill but “under protest”. It is also the specific claim of the plaintiff that on the direction of the Department, it had performed additional work and, therefore, was entitled to additional amount or damages as per the terms of agreement. Merely because the plaintiff had accepted the final bill, it cannot be deprived of its right to claim damages if it had incurred additional amount and is able to prove the same by acceptable materials. (800)