Back
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, HARISANKAR V. MENON
Sasi Eloor, S/o. Late E. M. Varkey – Appellant
Versus
Kerala State Electricity Board – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Harisankar V. Menon, J.
The unsuccessful additional plaintiffs 2 to 4 in O.S.No.1551 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, are the appellants in this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The suit was originally filed by the appellants’ deceased father, Sri. E.M. Varkey, who was a contractor by profession. Pending the suit, Sri. E.M. Varkey passed away, and therefore the appellants herein, in their capacity as the legal representatives of the deceased, got themselves impleaded in the suit as per order dated 24.09.1993 in I.A.No.3981 of 1993 and I.A.No.3982 of 1993. The above suit stood dismissed by a judgment and decree dated 27.09.2006, and it is challenging the above judgment and decree that the captioned appeal is filed by the appellants herein.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under:
Sri. E.M. Varkey was a contractor by profession, and he had undertaken a contract for the work of “Sabarigiri Augmentation Scheme - construction of a Diversion Tunnel from Gavier to Meenar I – balance works” pursuant to an agreement dated 23.09.1981. The peri
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 clarified misapplications of the Limitation Act and confirmed entitlement to claims based on government notifications regarding minimum wage increases in a construction contract context.
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 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 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.
A plaint must disclose a clear and enforceable cause of action; if it does not, it can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
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
