Dismissed

State of Kerala v. D.Bose

Kerala HC7 Oct 2016AS/508/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal suit challenging a decree under an office suit regarding a construction contract, the High Court upheld the finding of delay by defendants in site handover and materials. Rejecting appellant contention, the court dismissed the appeal, allowing the suit judgment regarding payment of dues and retention amount adjustment.

What did the court decide?

The appeal suit was dismissed; no costs awarded. The judgment of the Sub Court allowing the plaintiff to recover dues was affirmed.

State of Kerala Vs D.Bose — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/15TH ASWINA, 1938

¶6

AS.No. 508 of 1998 (B)

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & DECREE IN OS 405/1990 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA APPELLANTS : DEFENDANTS :-

¶8

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PROJECT CIRCLE, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶10

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE

¶11

RESPONDENT : PLAINTIFF :-

¶12

--------------------D.BOSE, AGED 30 YEARS, SON OF K.N.DAMODHARAN, P.W.D.CONTRACTOR, KAVALAYIL HOUSE, VENGALLOOR.P.O., KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.S.MANU

¶14

THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

V.CHITAMBARESH & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶16

A.S.No.508 of 1998

¶17

Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2016

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Chitambaresh, J.

¶20

The court below has found on evidence that there was delay on the part of the defendants in handing over the site to the plaintiff contractor. There was also a change in the alignment of the bridge due to the alteration of the design repeatedly. It is evident that considerable time was taken to fix the central line of bridge which was essential to start construction. Added to this is the fact that there was delay in the supply of the materials by the Department forcing the plaintiff to procure the same from other Depots.

¶21

The court below has meticulously analysed the evidence particularly with reference to Ext.B2 file pertaining to the contract in question. The court below has only allowed the plaintiff to recover the amount due to him for the work completed after adjusting the value of the balance materials. The retention amount as well as the security amount has been directed to be

¶22

A.S.No.508/1998

¶23

¶24

released with interest which cannot be faulted with. The finding that the plaintiff has not committed any breach of the contract is well merited and does not warrant interference. There is justification in holding that the balance work cannot be rearranged by the defendants at the risk and cost of the plaintiff.

¶25

The Appeal Suit lacks merit and is dismissed. No costs.

¶26

Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE

¶27

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶28

skj

¶29

True copy

¶30

P.A to Judge

State of Kerala v. D.Bose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. D.Bose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Achuthan Vs Ammu

P.Geetha Devi Vs Kottarath Suresh Kumar & Another

Gunavardhanan Vs Sainaba Abdul Rahman

C.R.Lopez Vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd

State Vs Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

K.J.Rosamma Vs Kannamkara Mathew