1. Dispute regarding the interpretation of a contract and the court's jurisdiction to determine if a matter is contrary to contractual terms. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 520
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. AHMADI, C.J.I. AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ
K.R. RAVEENDRANATHAN -Appellant:
Versus
STATE OF KERALA Respondent
Civil Appeals Nos. 2206-2211 of 1997
Decided on 19 March, 1997
A court cannot, while interpreting or construing a contract, conclude that an action is contrary to the contract and therefore beyond its jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Contract Law - Construction of Contract - Jurisdiction - A court, while purporting to construe a contract, cannot take upon itself the burden of deciding that a particular action was contrary to the contract and, as such, beyond its jurisdiction. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged an order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The dispute pertained to the interpretation of a contract and whether the lower court had erroneously determined that certain actions were contrary to the contractual terms, thereby placing them beyond the court's jurisdiction.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the legal issue was squarely covered by existing precedents, which establish that a court cannot, under the guise of construing a contract, conclude that an action is contrary to the contract and consequently beyond its jurisdiction.
Issues: Whether a court, in the process of construing a contract, can determine that an action is contrary to the contract and therefore beyond its jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: In construing a contract, the court cannot assume the burden of declaring an action to be contrary to the contract and, by extension, beyond its jurisdiction.
Result: Appeals allowed and impugned order set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
civil law
-
contract law
-
interpretation of contracts
- jurisdiction (Para 2)
-
interpretation of contracts
-
contract law
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends that a court cannot, while construing a contract, determine that a matter is contrary to the contract and therefore beyond its jurisdiction. (Para 2 )
3. The court found the issue covered by precedent, which prevents a court from deciding a matter is contrary to a contract while construing it. (Para 2 )
4. A court cannot, while construing a contract, conclude that a matter is contrary to the contract and consequently beyond its jurisdiction. (Para 2 )
5. Appeals allowed and the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court set aside. (Para 3 )
6. Can a court, while construing a contract, determine that a matter is contrary to the contract and thus beyond its jurisdiction?
No, a court cannot, while purporting to construe a contract, take upon itself the burden of deciding that a matter is contrary to the contract and therefore beyond its jurisdiction. (Para 2 )
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.
