Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN, MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ
State of Kerala, Represented By Superintending Engineer, National Highway North Circle – Appellant
Versus
M. Alavikutty Alias Babu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sathish Ninan, J.
RFA No.341 of 2017 and RFA No.201/2017 are by the plaintiff and the defendant respectively, in OS 234/2007. The suit was by the Department, for a declaration that the defendant-Contractor committed breach of contract, and for damages. It was decreed in part by the trial court. RFA 145/2022 is filed by the Contractor, challenging the dismissal of his suit for a declaration that the termination of the contract by the Department is void, and for realisation of money. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. As noticed, the suits are by the Department and the Contractor, against each other.
2. Ext.A1 agreement dated 11.03.2004 was entered into between the parties with regard to the work of “Improvement of Riding Quality Works” in Km. 42/000 to 55/000 of NH-212. The work was to be completed within three months. According to the Department, the site was handed over to the contractor on 19.03.2004. In spite of repeated instructions, both oral and in writing, the contractor failed to execute the work. After issuing Ext.A7 show cause notice dated 27.05.2005, the contract was terminated as per Ext.A11 order dated 29.07.2005. The contractor was put on notice that,
The contractor was found to have breached the contract, and the Department's claim for damages was denied due to insufficient evidence.
The contractor was found to have breached the contract due to non-performance, while the Department failed to substantiate its claims for damages.
The contractor was found to have breached the contract, while the Department failed to substantiate its claim for damages due to lack of evidence.
The contractor's claims of delays and damages were not supported by evidence that absolved the Department of its contractual obligations.
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 plaintiff is entitled to payment for work done despite breach allegations, as the defendants failed to substantiate their claims for damages.
The court reinforced that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the scope for judicial interference with arbitral awards is limited, particularly regarding factual findings.
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
