A.S. No. 402 of 2000. Case: The State of Kerala and Ors. Vs Delco (Delambadi Concern) PWD Contractors. High Court of Kerala (India)

Case NumberA.S. No. 402 of 2000
CounselFor Appellant: B. Jayasurya, Government Pleader and For Respondents: Kodoth Sreedharan, Advocate
JudgesV. Chitambaresh and Sathish Ninan, JJ.
IssueCivil Procedure Code
Judgement DateFebruary 03, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Kerala (India)

Judgment:

Sathish Ninan, J.

  1. A decree for money is under challenge by the defendants in the suit. The suit was for recovery of Rs. 33,60,295/- with interest thereon. The suit was decreed in part, for realisation of Rs. 27,72,803/- with interest.

  2. The plaintiff is a contractor. He entered into a contract with the defendants for the construction of an approach road for a bridge. The time stipulated for completion of the work was 18 months from the date of handing over of the site by the defendants. The site was formally handed over on 03.09.1988 and the work was to be completed on or before 03.03.1990. According to the plaintiff, the obligations on the part of the defendants were not fulfilled by them which resulted in delay in performance of the contract. So also, additional works were required to be done. The suit was lodged claiming amounts under various heads, viz., for works for maintaining traffic, for formation of diversion road, for sprinkling water, escalation charges at enhanced rate, extra costs incurred for protected blasting works, etc.

  3. The defendants admitted that certain extra items of works were done by the plaintiff. It was contended that the delay in completion of the work was due to the slackness of the plaintiff. The excess rate claimed by the plaintiff for formation of diversion road, for maintaining traffic, etc., as extra works were contended to be not sustainable. As regards the claim for expenses for sprinkling of water, it was contended that it is part of the main work for which the defendants are not liable to give any additional amount. As regards the claim under the head of protective blasting of rocks, it was contended that the soil at the site was only hard laterite which did not require any protected blasting. It was also contended that the suit is barred by limitation.

  4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.

  5. Though contentions regarding limitation and delay in performance of the contract at the hands of the plaintiff are raised in the appeal, the same are not seriously pursued. The court below has referring to the contents of Ext. A21 reply notice dated 01.12.1993 found that the liability of the defendants has been admitted therein and that there is no final settlement of accounts between the parties, and held that the suit is well within the period of limitation. As regards the question as to at whose instance delay was caused, the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT