Supreme Court of India
R.L. KALATHIA & CO.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 47
- Decided
- 14 January 2011
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Holding
Acceptance of a final bill under protest and issuance of a No‑Due Certificate does not bar a contractor from asserting a genuine claim for additional work, and the High Court’s estoppel reasoning was erroneous.
Summary
The partnership firm R.L. Kalathia & Co. was awarded a contract by the Gujarat State Government to construct the Fulzer Dam. During execution, the Executive Engineer ordered several additions and alterations, for which the contractor performed extra work and later submitted a consolidated claim. The contractor accepted the final bill "under protest" and subsequently served a statutory notice under Section 80 CPC and filed a suit for the additional amount. The trial court allowed part of the claim and decreed Rs.2,27,758, but the Gujarat High Court set aside the decree, holding the contractor was estopped by its acceptance of the final bill and issuance of a No‑Due Certificate. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that acceptance of a final bill under protest and issuance of a No‑Due Certificate do not bar a genuine claim for additional work, and the High Court’s reliance on estoppel was misplaced. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the trial court’s decree and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether a contractor who accepts a final bill "under protest" and issues a No‑Due Certificate is estopped from claiming additional amounts for extra work.
- Whether clauses of the contract (Clauses 8 and 10) preclude the contractor from raising a claim after acceptance of the final bill.
- Whether the claim is barred by limitation or other procedural bars such as the statutory notice under Section 80 CPC.
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit despite the alleged estoppel.
Legislation cited
Subjects
construction contractadditional work claimno due certificateestoppelfinal billcontract variationsstatutory noticecivil suit
Judgment
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 391
R.L. KALATHIA & CO. A
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
(Civil Appeal No. 3245 of 2003)
JANUARY 14, 2011
8
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN, JJ.]
1- CONTRACT:
Construction contract - Claim for additional work carried c
out - Refused on the ground that the claim was laid after
receiving final payment -Held : If there is accepted claim, the
court cannot reject the same merely because the contractor
has issued "No Due Certificate" - Principles as regards claims
after acceptance· of final bill, enumerated - In the instant case, D
..._ the contractor accepted the amount of the final bill under
protest - The contractor had performed additional work and
had a genuine claim which was considered in detail and was
rightly allowed by trial court - High Court without adverting to
factual details e"ed in reversing the judgment and decree of
E
trial court on the ground of estoppel - Instead of remitting the
matter to High Court, claim examined on merits - Judgment
of High Court set aside and judgment and decree of trial court
--- restored - Estoppel.
The appellant-contractor, a partnership firm, engaged F
in the construction business, was awarded a contract by
the respondent-State Government for construction of a
Dam. During the execution of the said work, the
· Executive Engineer in-charge of the project, made certain
.+
additions, alterations and variations in respect of certain G
items of work and directed the appellant to carry out the
same also. The appellant filed a consolidated statement
of claims for the additional/altered works, but in vain.
Ultimately, the contractor filed a suit for recovery of a sum
391 H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S~C.R.
A of Rs.3,66,538/- with running interest. The trial court
decreed the suit for Rs. 2,27,758/- with proportionate
costs and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
the suit till realization. However, the Division Bench of the
High Court allowed the appeal of the employer~state
B Government and dismissed the suit mainly on the ground
that the plaintiff-contractor had accepted the amount as
per final bill "under protest" without disclosing any real
grievance on merits and it amounted to accepting the final
bill without any valid objection and. grievance. It further
c held that the conduct of the contractor in accepting the
final bill and thereafter sending statutory notice and filing
the suit for recovery of the differential amount was barred
by the principle of estoppel. Aggrieved, the plaintiff.
contractor filed the appeal.
D
. .
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 From various decisions of this Court, the
following principles emerge: (i) Merely because the
contractor has issued "No Due Certificate", if there is
E acceptable claim, the court cannot reject the same on the
ground of issuance of "No Due Certificate"; (ii) Inasmuch
as it is common that unless a discharge certificate is
given in advance by the contractor, payment of bills are
generally delayed, therefore, such a clause in the contract
F would not be an absolute bar to a contractor raising
claims which are genuine at a later date even after
submission of such "No-claim Certificate".; (iii) even after
execution of full and final discharge voucher/receipt by
one of the parties, if the said party is able to establish that
G he is entitled to further amount for which he is having
adequate materials, he is not barred from claiming such
amount merely because of acceptance of the final bill by
mentioning "without prejudice" or by issuing 'No Due
Certificate'. [para 9) (402-8-E]
H
R.L. KALATHIA & CO. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 393
\ Chairman and MD, NTPC Ltd. vs. Reshmi Constructions, A
Builders & Contractors, 2004 (1) SCR 62 = (2004) 2 SCC
663; Ambica Construction vs. Union of India, 2006 (9) Suppl.
SCR 188 = (2006) 13 SCC 475; National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Boghara Polyfab Private Ltd., 2008 (13)
SCR 638 =(2009) 1 SCC 267 - relied on B
1.2 In the instant case, it is true that when the final
bill was submitted, the plaintiff had accepted the amount
as mentioned in the final bill but "under protest". It is also
the specific claim of the plaintiff that on the direction of
the Department, it had performed additional work and, !C
therefore, was entitled to additional amount/damages as
per the terms of agreement. Merely because the plaintiff
had accepted the final bill, it cannot be deprived of its right
to claim damages if it had incurred additional amount and
able to prove the same by acceptable materials. From the D
materials on record, it is evident that the appellant/plaintiff
had a genuine claim which was considered in great detail
by the trial court and supported by oral and documentary
evidence. The High Court has not adverted to any of the
factual details/claim of the plaintiff except reversing the E
judgment and decree of the trial court on the principle of
estoppal. [paras 5 and 10] [398-G-H; 399-A; 402-E-F]
1.3 Though the matter could be remitted to the High
Court for consideration in respect of merits of the claim F
and the judgment and decree of the. trial court, inasmuch
as the work had been completed in August, 1973, final bill
.·was raised on 31.03.1274 51nd additional claim was raised
on 16.07.1976, to curtail the period of litigation, it would
be appropriate that this Court scrutinizes all the issues G.
framed by the trial court, its discussion and ultimate
conclusion based on the pleadings and supported by the
materials. Issue No. 15 in the trial court judgment related
to estoppel which has been decided in favour of the
plaintiff. In respect of other issues relating to execution
H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
A~ 'Of extra work, the· trial court based its findings on the
materials placed, accepted certain items in toto and
rejected certain claims and, ultimately, rightly granted a
decree for a sum of Rs. 2,27,758/- with proportionate
costs and interest @ 6 per cent per annum from .the date
B of the suit till realization and the plaintiff is entitled to the
said amount. The impugned judgment of the High Court
is set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court
restored. [paras 10-12] [402-F-H; 403-A-B; 404-F-H; 405-
A-B]
c Case Law Reference:
2004 (1) SCR-62 relied on para 6
--
2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 188 relied on para7
1
I
D 2008 (13 ) SCR 638 relied on para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3245 of 2003.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2002 of the
E High Court of Gujarat at Ahmadabad in first Appeal No. 2038
of 1983.
Altaf Ahmed, Bhargava V. Desai and Rahul Gupta for the
Apellant.
F
Madhi Divan, Hemantika Wahi and Jesal for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the
judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High
Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982
passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State
H' ~overnment to p~y a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and
R.L. KALATHIA & CO. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 395
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections· A
filed by the appellant-Firm for recovery of the aggregate amount
of Rs. 3,66,538.05 on account of different counts as specified
in the claim of the said suit.
2. Brief facts:
B
a) The appellant-Firm, a partnership firm registered under
The Indian Partnership Act, is carrying on the business of
construction of roads, buildings, dams etc. mostly in Saurashtra
and also in other parts of the State of Gujarat. In response to
the invitation of tender by the State Government for construction c
of Fulzer Dam II in Jamnagar District, the appellant-Firm quoted
and offered to construct the same for the quotation,.
specifications and design of the Dam vide covering letter dated
05.06.1970. In the said letter, the appellant-Firm also offered
that they would give rebate of 3/4% provided the final bill be D
"' paid within three months from the date of completion of the
work. The offer of the appellant being the lowest amongst other
parties; it was accepted by the Stat~ Government with the
clause that the construction work was to be completed within
a period of 24 months from the works order dated 07.09.1970 E
which was subsequently clarified that the period of 24 months
was to be commenced from the date of commencement of work
i.e., 29.11.1970.
b) During execution of the said work, the Executive
Engineer, who was in-charge of the project, made certain F
additions, alterations and variations in respect of certain items
of work and directed the appellant to carry out additional and
alteration work as specified in writing from time to time. The
final decision as to the alteration in respect of certain items of
+ work and particularly, in respect of the depth of foundation which G
is known as cut off trenches (COT) took long time with the result
that the Firm was required to attend the larger quantity of work
and thus entitled for extra payment for the additional work. As
. per the works contract, the Firm was not paid the running bill
within the specified time and, therefore, suffered loss. H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
A c) On 16.07.1976, the Firm lodged a consolidated
statement of their claims for the additional or altered works etc.
to the Executive Engineer. As there was no response, the Firm
served a statutory notice dated 04.01.1977 under Section 80
of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the
B Code'). Again, on 24.03.1977, after getting no reply, the Firm
filed Civil Suit No. 30 of 1977 on the file of the Civil Judge
(S.D.), Jamnagar praying for a decree of the aggregate amount
of Rs.3,66,538.05 with running interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
from the date of final bill till the date of Suit and at the rate which
c may be awarded by the Court from the date of Suit till payment.
Vide order dated 14.12.1982, the Civil Judge allowed the suit
and passed a decree for a sum of Rs.2,27, 758/- with
proportionate costs together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the
date of suit till realization.
D d) Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
State Government filed First Appeal No. 2038 of 1983 before
the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The Division Bench
of the High Court, vide its order dated 07.10.2002, allowed the
appeal of the State Government and dismissed the suit of the
E appellant-Firm and also directed that the decretal amount
deposited by the State Government and as permitted to be
withdrawn by the Firm should be refunded within a period of
four months from the date of the judgment. Being aggrieved by
the said judgment, the appellant-Firm has filed this appeal by
F way of special leave petition before this Court.
3. Heard Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel for the
appellant and Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned counsel for the
respondent-State.
G 4. Though the trial Court after accepting the claim of the
,
plaintiff granted a decree to the extent of Rs. 2,27,758/- with
proportionate costs and interest @ 6 per cent per annum from
the date of suit till realization, in the appeal filed by the State
after finding that the plaintiff was estopped from claiming
H damages against the Department as the final bill was accepted;
R.L. KALATHIA & CO. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 397
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
the High Court allowed the appeal of the State and dismissed A
the suit of the plaintiff. The High Court non-suited the plaintiff
mainly on the ground of Clauses 8 and 10 of the agreement
and of the fact that the final bill was accepted by the plaintiff
under protest. In view of the same, it is relevant to refer Clauses
8 and 10 of the agreement which are as follows: B
"Clause 8.-No payment shall be made for any work
t estimated to cost less than Rs 1,000/- till after the whole
of the said work shall have been completed and a
certificate of completion given. But in the case of work C
estimated to cost more than Rs 1,000/- the contractor
shall, on submitting a monthly bill therefore, be entitled to
receive payment proportionate to the part of the work then
approved and passed by the engineer in charge whose
certificate of such approval and passing of the sum so
payable shall be final and conclusive against the D
contractor. All such intermediate payments, shall be
regarded as payments by way of advance against the final
payments only and not as paymants for work actually done
and completed and shall not preclude the engineer in
charge from requiring bad, unsound, imperfect or unskillful E
work to be removed and taken away and reconstructed or
.._ re-erected, nor shall any such payment be considered as
an admission of the due performance of the contract or any
part thereof in any respect of the occurring of any claim
nor shall it conclude, determine, or effect any way of the F
powers of the engineer in charge as to the final settlement
and adjustments of the accounts of otherwise, or in any
other way vary or affect the contract. The final bills shall be
submitted by the contractor within one month of the date
fixed for the completion of the work, otherwise the engineer G
in charge's certificate of the measurement and of the total
amount payable for the work shall be final and binding on
all parties.
Clause 10. A bill shall be submitted by the contractor each H
month on or before the date fixed by the engineer in charge
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.
A for all work executed in the previous months and the
engineer in charge shall take or caused to be taken the
requisite measurement for the purpose of having the same
verified, and the claim, so far as it is admissible, shall be
adjusted, if possible within 10 days from the presentation
B of the bill. If the contrcictor does not submit the bill within
the time fixed as aforesaid, the engineer in charge may
depute a subordinate to measure up the said work in the
presence of the contractor or his duly authorized agent
whose counter signature to the measurement list shall be
c sufficient warrant, and the engineer in charge may prepare
a bill from such list which shall be binding on the contractor
in all respects."
It is the stand of the State and accepted by the High Court that
the plaintiff-Firm has not fully complied with Clauses 8 and 10
D of the agreement. It is also their stand that mere endorsement
to the effect that the plaintiff has been accepting the amount
as per final bill "under protest" without disclosing real grievance
on merits is not sufficient and it amounts to accepting the final
bill without any valid objection and grievance on merits by the
E plaintiff. The High Court has also accepted the claim of the
State that by the conduct of. the plaintiff in accepting the final
bill and the Department has made full payment to the plaintiff, .1v
sending statutory notice and filing suit for recovery of the
differential amount was barred by the principle of estoppel. On
F going through the entire materials including the oral and
documentary evidence led in by both the parties and the
judgment and decree of the trial Judge, we are unable to
accept the only reasoning of the High Court in non-suiting the
plaintiff. ---
G 5. It is true that when the final bill was submitted, the plaintiff
had accepted the amount as mentioned in the final bill but "under
protest". It is also the specific claim of the plaintiff that on the
direction of the Department, it had performed additional work
and hence entitled for additional amount/damages as per the
H
R.L. KALATHIA & CO. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 399
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
terms of agreement. Merely because the plaintiff had accepted A
the final bill, it cannot be deprived of its right to claim damages
if it had incurred additional amount and able to prove the same
by acceptable materials.
6. Before going into the factual matrix on this aspect, it is
8
useful to refer the decisions of this Court relied on by Mr. Altaf
Ahmed. In the case of Chairman and MD, NTPC Ltd. vs.
Reshmi Constructions, Builders & Contractors, (2004) 2 SSC
663, which relates to termination of a contract, one of the
questions that arose for consideration was "Whether after the
contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work C
and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and
after issuance a 'No Due Certificate' by the contractor, can any
party to the contract raise any dispute for reference to
arbitration? While answering the said issue this Court held:-
D
"27. Even when rights and obligations of the parties are
worked out, the contract does not come to an end inter alia
for the purpose of determination of the disputes arising
thereunder, and, thus, the arbitration agreement can be
invoked. Although it may not be strictly in place but we E
cannot shut our eyes to the ground reality that in a case
where a contractor has made huge investment, he cannot
afford not to take from the employer the amount under the
bills, for various reasons which may include discharge of
his liability towards the banks, financial institutions and
F
other persons. In such a situation; the public sector
undertakings would have an upper hand. They would not
ordinarily release the money unless a "No-Demand
Certificate" is signed. Each case, therefore, is required to
be considered on its own facts.
G
28. Further, necessitas non habet legem is an age-old
maxim which means n;cessity knows no law. A person
may sometimes have to succumb to the pressure of the
other party to the bargain who is in a stronger position.·
H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
A 7. In Ambica Construction vs. Union of India, (2006) 13
SCC 475 which also deals with issuance of "No-claim
Certificate" by the contractor. The following conclusions are
relevant which read as under:-
"16. Since we are called upon to consider the efficacy of
B Clause 43(2) of the General Conditions of Contract with
reference to the subject-matter of the present appeals, the
same is set out h~reinbelow:
"43. (2) Signing of 'no-claim' certificate.-The
c contractor shall not be entitled to make any claim
whatsoever against the Railways under or by virtue
of or arising out of this contract, nor shall the
Railways entertain or consider any such claim, if
made by the contractor, after he shall have signed
D a 'no-claim' certificate in favour of the Railways, in
such form as shall be required by the Railways,
after the works are finally measured up. The
contractor shall be debarred from disputing the
correctness of the items covered by 'no-claim
certificate' or demanding a reference to arbitration
E
in respect thereof."
17. A glance at the said clause will immediately indicate
that a no-claim certificate is required to be submitted by
a contractor once the works are finally measured up. In the
F instant case the work was yet to be completed and there
is nothing to indicate that the works, as undertaken by the
contractor, had been finally measured and on the basis of
the same a no-claim certificate had been issued by the
appellant. On the other hand, even the first arbitrator, who
G had been appointed, had come to a finding that no-claim
certificate had been given under coercion and duress. It
is the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court which, for
the first time, came to a conclusion that such no-claim
certificate had not been submitted under coercion and
.H duress .
R.L. KALATHIA & CO. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 401
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
A
18. From the submissions made on behalf of the respective
parties and in particular from the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant, it is apparent that unless a
discharge certificate is given in advance, payment of bills
are generally delayed. Although, Clause 43(2) has been
included in the General Conditions of Contract, the same .B
is meant to be a safeguard as against frivolous claims
after final measurement. Having regard to the decision in
r Reshmi Constructions it can no longer be said that such
a clause in the contract would be· an absolute bar to a
. contractor raising claims which are genuine, even after the c
submission of such no-claim certificate.
19. We are convinced from the materials on record that in
the instant case the appellant also has a genuine claim
which was considered in great detail by the arbitrator who D
was none other than the counsel of the respondent
Railways."
8. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Boghara
Polyfab Private Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 267, the question involved
was whether a dispute raised by an insured, after giving a full E
and final discharge voucher to the insurer, can be referred to
arbitration. The following conclusion in para 26 is relevant:-
"26. When we refer to a discharge of contract by an
agreement signed by both the parties or by execution of F
a full and final discharge voucher/receipt by one of the
parties, we refer to an agreement or discharge voucher
which is validly and voluntarily executed. If the party which
has executed the discharge agreement or discharge
voucher, alleges that the execution of such discharge G
- --+ agreement or voucher was on account of fraud/coercion/
undue influence practised by the other party and is able
to establish the same, then obviously the discharge of the
contract by such agreement/voucher is rendered void and
H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
A cannot be acted upon. Consequently, any dispute raised
by such party would be arbitrable."
9. From the above conclusions of this Court, the following
principles
. emerge:
.
B (i) Merely because the contractor has issued "No Due
Certificate", if there js acceptable claim, the court cannot reject
the same on the ground of issuance of "No Due Certificate".
..,
(ii) lnasmuc~ as it is common that unless a discharge
c certificate is given in advance by the contractor, payment of bills
are generally delayed, hence such a clause in the contract would
not be an absolute bar to a contractor raising claims which are
genuine at a later date even after submission of such "No-claim
Certificate".
D
(iii) Even after execution of full and final discharge voucher/
receipt by one of the parties, if the said party able to establish
..,
that he is ·entitled to further amount for which he is having
adequate materials, is not barred from claiming such amount
merely because of acceptance of the final bill by mentioning
E "without prejudice" or by issuing 'No Due Certificate'.
10. In the light of the above principles, we are convinced
from the materials on record that in the instant case, Jhe
appellant/plaintiff also had a genuine· claim- which was
F considered in great detail by the trial Court and supported by
oral and documentary evidence. Though the High Court has not
adverted to any of the factual details/claim of the plaintiff except
reversing the judgment and decree.of the trial Court on the
principle of estoppel, we have carefully perused and
G considered the detailed discussion and ultimate conclusion of
the trial Judge. Though we initially intend to remit the matter to ,._
the High Court for consideration in respect of merits of the claim
and the judgment and decree of the trial Court, inasmuch as
!'
the ccntract was executed on 05.06.1970 and work had been
H
R.L. KALATHIA & CO. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 403
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
completed in August, 1973, final bill was raised on 31.03.1974 A
and additional claim was raised on 16.07.1976, to curtail the
period of litigation, we scrutinized all the issues framed by the
trial Court, its discussion and ultimate conclusion based on the
pleadings and supported by the materials. The trial Court
framed the following issues:- B
"The following issues were framed at Ex. 16:-
y 1. Whether Plaintiff proves that he executed extra
work of change and entitled to claim Rs. 3,600/-?
c
2. Whether Plaintiff proves that he did extra work of
C.O.T. filing and hence entitled to claim Rs. 1,800/
-?
3. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs. 15,625/c in
connection with excavated stuff? D
4. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs. 7,585/~ for
guide bunds?
5. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs 5,640/- for E
pitching work?
6. Whether Petitioner is entitled to claim Rs. 13,244/
- for providing sand filter in river.?
7. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs. 1,375/- for F
waster weir back filling?
8. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs. 30,600/- for
extra item of masonry?
9. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs. 14,339.84 G
--t
for breach of condition and irregular payment?
10. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs 12,386.64
ps. for providing heavy gate?
H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.
A 11. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs.
1,37,478.17 ps for rising of prices?
12. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs. 30,000/- for
establishment charges?
B 13. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs. 93,049.76
towards interest?
14. Whether notice under Section 80 of the CPC is ...,
defective?
c 15. Whether Plaintiff is estopped from filing suit in view
of fact that he has signed and accepted bills
prepared by Defendant?
16. Whether suit is barred by time?
D
17. Whether Court has jurisdiction to decide _the
present suit?
18. What order and decree?"
E 11. We have already considered and answered the issue
relating to No. 15 in the earlier paragraphs and held in favour
of the plaintiff. In respect of other issues relating to execution
of extra work, excavation, construction of guide bunds, pitching
work, providing sand filter in river, waste weir back filling, extra
F masonary, providing heavy gate, additional amount due to
raising of prices, additional amount towards establishment .
charges, interest etc., the trial Court based on the materials
placed accepted certain items in toto and rejected certain
claims and ultimately granted a decree for a sum of Rs.
G 2,27,758/- with proportionate costs and interest@ 6 per cent +-
per annum from the date of the suit till realization. On going
through the materials placed, relevant issues framed, ultimate
discussion and conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, we fully
agree with the same and the plaintiff is entitled to the said
H amount as granted by the trial Court.
R.L. KALATHIA & CO. v. STATE OF GUJARAT 405
[P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
. 12. In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court A
in First Appeal No. 2038 of 1983 dated 07.10.2002 is set
aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court in Civil
Suit No. 30 of 1977 dated 14.12.1982 is restored. The civil
appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
8
R.P. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "construction contract"Sign in to search