Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. SANDESH
K.A. Ravi Chengappa, S/o. Late K.A. Aiyamma – Appellant
Versus
Chief Secretary To The Government of Karnataka, Ambedkar Veedhi, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's contract work and payment demand. (Para 3) |
| 2. plaintiff's claim for payment based on work done is contested by defendants. (Para 4) |
| 3. defendant's denial of claims on technical grounds. (Para 5) |
| 4. trial court's findings on evidence and limitations. (Para 6 , 12) |
| 5. appellate court's affirmation of trial court's findings. (Para 7 , 8 , 14) |
| 6. arguments on the merits of the appeal and limitations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 15) |
| 7. second appeal is dismissed. (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT :
(H.P. SANDESH, J.)
This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6.
2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and dismissal of the suit on merits as well as on limitation, which is affirmed by the Appellate Court.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff is a class-1 Civil Contractor, he undertakes contract work from Government Institutions, quasi Government Institutions, private parties etc. It is stated that during 2000-2001, the Hakathur Grama
The dismissal of the appeal underscores the necessity for the claimant to substantiate their claims within the limitation period, as per Article 18 of the Limitation Act.
Fraud allegations require specific pleadings with particulars under CPC Order VI Rule 4; vague pleas rejected. Limitation for work recovery runs from contract-specified final bill settlement date. Pr....
The court upheld that a party may be compensated for work done despite absence of a written contract when the other party benefits, reinforcing principles of unjust enrichment under Section 70 of the....
The lack of privity of contract and failure to establish a cause of action were central to the court's decision.
Limitation is not a purely question of law, but a question and fact of law—On technical grounds State should not deny to its citizens just dues.
A contractor is entitled to recover damages for loss of profit when delays are caused by the other party's breach of contract, and penalties cannot be imposed on the contractor under such circumstanc....
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....
The court upheld that delayed payments must be compensated with interest, emphasizing that the appellants’ claims of irregularities were unsubstantiated and did not impede the contractors' right to r....
Contractors must adhere to measurement protocols outlined in contract agreements; failure by the other party to fulfill their obligations does not negate a claimant's right to recover amounts due.
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
