Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.SAKTHIVEL
State – Appellant
Versus
P.V. Murthy S/o P. Viswanathan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context for second appeal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff claim for measured work payments in k2 contract. (Para 3) |
| 3. defense regarding contractual non-performance and bill interpolation. (Para 4) |
| 4. trial and appellate findings on k2 agreement obligations. (Para 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. questions of law regarding evidence and interest rates. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. burden of proof concerning measurement and interest under cpc. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. modification of decree for statutory post-decree interest. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated January 23, 2002 made in A.S. No.31 of 2000 by 'the V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], confirming the Judgment and Decree dated September 29, 1997 made in O.S. No.6231 of 1991 by 'the V Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai' ['Trial Court' for short], the defendants therein have preferred this Second Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE IN BRIEF:
3. The plaintiff is a contractor registered with the Pu
In works contracts, the party maintaining measurement records bears the burden to prove the quantity of work performed. Absent such evidence, the contractor's claim for work done must be upheld. Post....
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....
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....
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.
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.
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
