SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 520

A. M. AHMADI, K. S. PARIPOORNAN, S. P. KURDUKAR
K. R. RAVEENDRANATHAN – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent


ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the question issue in the present appeals is squarely covered by the decision of this Co in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of J &K1. In particular, it dre our attention to para 10 of the judgment and the portion extracted from the decision in Sudarsan Trading Co. case2 wherein it was said that b purporting to construe the contract the Court could not take upon itself the burden of saying that this was contrary to the contract and, as such, beyon jurisdiction. That is exactly what the Court has done in the instant Therefore, the issue stands covered by this decision and the learned counsel for the respondents could not in the face of this decision argue otherwise.

3. In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court with no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top