In this regular first appeal, the State challenged a lower court decree holding termination of a government contract illegal and awarding amounts to the plaintiff contractor. The appellate bench found no grounds to interfere with the evidence-based findings. Consequently, the appeal failed and was dismissed in limine.
The appeal was dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/16TH BHADRA 1934
RFA.No. 84 of 2011 (C)
-------------------------------[AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE DATED 29/11/2008 IN OS.NO.42/1996 OF THE SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA]
APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 4:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. BUILDING DIVISION, IDUKKI, PAINAVU.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. BUILDINGS, THODUPUZHA P.O.
4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D. LOCAL WORKS, THODUPUZHA.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.R. SYAM KUMAR.
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
LANDOOSE T. DAVID, S/O.PATHROSE DAVID, P.W.D. CONTRACTOR, THOPPIL HOUSE, P.O.KOKKUPPILLY, THIRUVANIYOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 305.
BY ADVS. SRI.H.B.SHENOY, SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY, SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY, SRI.ABU MATHEW, SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE, SRI.K.V.GEORGE.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION HEARD ON 07-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
&
A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.F.A.No.84 of 2011
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 7th day of September, 2012.
Judgment
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal by the State comes up for admission and interim orders after condonation of delay. As noted by the Bench even in the order condoning the delay, there was an earlier round of litigation in which even a proper written statement was not filed in time by the State. Thereafter, opportunity was given. It appears that the State had raised counter claim also. The suit stands decreed holding that termination of the contract was illegal and that amounts are due to the plaintiff. It has been categorically found on adjudication that there is no evidence to show that the defendants sustained any loss by making rearrangement of the balance work and that there is also no evidence as to how the work was rearranged and what was the amount quoted for the
RFA84/11 -: 2 :-
balance work and what was the amount offered by the subsequent contractor. The finding that the termination of the work was illegal and that the plaintiff is entitled to the amounts as found by the court below, is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record. We do not find any ground to interfere with that.
In the result, the appeal fails. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge.
A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai, Judge.
Sha/100912
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment and decree holding termination of work illegal and amounts due to the plaintiff should be modified.
Whether the finding that the termination was illegal is sustainable on the evidence on record.
State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary
The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Building Division, Idukki
The Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Buildings, Thodupuzha
The Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. Local Works, Thodupuzha
Landoose T. David
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
