Back
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Dega Jayalakshamma – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna RAO, J.
This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/plaintiffs challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 05.11.2003, in O.S. No.91 of 1995 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondents herein is the defendants in the said Suit.
2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed a Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,16,101/- towards the loss and damages caused to them.
3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No.91 of 1995, are as under:
The first plaintiff’s husband by name Dega Sundararami Reddy, who is the contractor entered into agreement with the government for execution of the contract works i.e., construction of HLB across Challakalava at KM 18/6 of G.D. Road to Siddavaram (via) Kota (Balance work) covered by agreement No.99/86-87 dated 28.02.1987. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, the contract work in question has to be completed within a period of 2 months from the date of handing over of the site. The department handed o
The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit for damages due to insufficient evidence and the contractor's failure to complete the work as per the contract.
The court upheld the plaintiff's claims for withheld payments under the contract, establishing entitlement based on completed work despite defendants' claims of substandard quality and modified the i....
The court affirmed that a contractor's claims for delays caused by defendants were valid, and it has the discretion to adjust interest rates based on economic conditions.
The court upheld the trial Court's decree for recovery of contract payments, emphasizing the contractor's timely completion of work and the defendants' failure to prove claims of substandard work.
Point of law: When the appeal is presented in terms of Section 96 CPC and when this Court is considering this appeal not only as a last Court of fact but also in terms of law, it is open for the appe....
The judgment clarified the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, the application of the Limitation Act, and the entitlement of the plaintiff to claim losses incurred due to non-cooperation from the defend....
Escalation of contract rates is permissible when delays are not due to the contractor's fault, allowing for additional payment for work done after significant delays.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
