Back
ROBIN PHUKAN
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Inamul Rashid Hazarika, S/o Late Abdul Rashid Hazarika – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants and also heard Mr. U.C. Rabha, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
2. This regular first appeal, under Section 96, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 27.04.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No.17/2003 [Title Suit No.22/2013(new)]. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 27.04.2015, the learned Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”) has decreed the suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.51,34,336/- including the interest and security deposit.
3. The back ground facts leading to filing of the present appeal is briefly stated as under:-
The plaintiff must substantiate claims with clear evidence; failure to do so renders the trial court's decree arbitrary and subject to remand.
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.
The lack of privity of contract and failure to establish a cause of action were central to the court's decision.
Civil Courts have jurisdiction to hear claims under construction contracts barred from arbitration, provided they arise within the limitation period set by specific contract conditions.
The court clarified misapplications of the Limitation Act and confirmed entitlement to claims based on government notifications regarding minimum wage increases in a construction contract context.
The court established that the starting point for limitation under the Limitation Act depends on when the right to sue accrues, not merely on the date of breach or completion of work.
The court emphasized that the proper jurisdiction for a suit arising from a contract is where the contract was executed and the work performed, highlighting the fallacy in dismissing the suit without....
A court cannot be denied jurisdiction by an agreement between parties if that court is competent to adjudicate the matter based on where the breach occurred and the nature of the contract.
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
