Allowed

M/S.Enkon Engineers and Contractors v. G.C.D.A.

Kerala HC1 Feb 2018OP(C)/1998/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application seeking correction of a decree that erroneously awarded interest at 16% instead of 15% per annum, the High Court of Kerala set aside the trial court's dismissal order. The court held that the trial court was duty-bound to align the decree with the judgment and discharged this duty despite pending appeal and erroneous objections.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissing the application was set aside; trial court directed to correct the decree.

M/S.Enkon Engineers and Contractors Vs G.C.D.A. — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 12TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

OP(C).No. 1998 of 2014

¶6

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:-

¶7

1 M/S.ENKON ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS

¶8

MAMANGALAM CHURCH ROAD, COCHIN - 682 025, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, JOSEPH

¶9

VILANGADAN, VILANGATTIL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM, COCHIN - 682025.

¶10

2 JOHN JOSEPH VILANGADAN,

¶11

S/O.JOSEPH VILANGADAN, VILANGATTIL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM,

¶12

COCHIN - 682 025, PARTNER OF M/S.ENKON ENGINEERS AND

¶13

CONTRACTORS.

¶14

BY ADV.SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:-

¶16

1. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

¶17

COCHIN - 682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶18

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER,

¶19

GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COCHIN - 682 020.

¶20

BY SRI.C.A.MAJEED, SC, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY SRI.ABDUL HAKHIM M.A., SC, GCDA

¶21

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

OP(C).No. 1998 of 2014 (O)

¶23

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXHIBIT P1. THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.505 OF 2009 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB-COURT, ERNAKULAM, DATED 28.06.2010.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2. THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF I.A.NO.1882 OF 2013 IN O.S.NO.505 OF 2009 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 23.02.2013.

¶27

EXHIBIT P3. THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO I.A.NO.1882 OF 2013 DATED 14.07.2014.

¶28

EXHIBIT P4. THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1882 OF 2013 IN O.S.NO.505 OF 2009 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM, DATED 23.07.2014.

¶29

RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

bka/-

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶34

OP(C) No. 1998 of 2014

¶35

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2018

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

This OP(C) is filed by the plaintiffs in OS No.505/2009 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam, in whose favour the suit was decreed. It filed Ext.P2

¶38

application with the following prayer:

¶39

“.... this Hon'ble court be pleased to correct the judgment and decree of this Hon'ble Court in OS No.505 of 2009, dated 28-06-2010 by incorporating the interest at the rate of 15% for the amount decreed under various heads in the judgment and decree.”

¶40

By Ext.P4 order the learned Sub Judge dismissed it. This is challenged.

¶41

2.Heard.

¶42

3.Admittedly, the decree is not in conformity with the judgment. When it is brought to the notice of the trial court that the decree is not in conformity with the judgment, it is the duty of that court to correct it even without an application. But, the learned Sub Judge refused to do so on two grounds; firstly, the court could

¶43

OP(C) No. 1998 of 2014

¶44

..2..

¶45

not have granted future interest at a rate exceeding 6% in view of Section 34 CPC and secondly, an appeal is pending against the decree. These two reasons are not valid. In the judgment it is mentioned that the petitioners are entitled to get interest at 15% per annum. But, the decree shows that the rate of interest is 16%. The court was duty bound to correct it. Pendency of an appeal against the decree is not a ground to refuse to do so. Ext.P4 order is liable to be set aside.

¶46

In the result, Ext.P4 order is set aside. The trial court is directed to correct the decree so that it is in conformity with the judgment.

¶47

Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶48

bka/

M/S.Enkon Engineers and Contractors v. G.C.D.A.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Enkon Engineers and Contractors v. G.C.D.A.

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

Radha Vs Adbulkhadar Kunju P.M

Shajahan v Vs State of Kerala

Parappil Hamza Vs Ettuveettil Subaida

Ambili Vs State of Kerala

Polappadi Nanu Vs Nhattuthala Achuthan

Kallyani Vs Chandravathi