IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 1494 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15578/2005 Dated 18/01/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- M/S. ANUGRAHA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS (P) LTD. NO.18, TRUST SQUARE STREET, RAMALINGAPURAM, CHENNAI-600 012, A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, R.SHANMUGHA VADIVEL. BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SRI.M.HARISHARMA SRI.T.P.ELDHOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD., POST BOX NO.1944,CARMEL CENTRE, III FLOOR, BANERJI ROAD, KOCHI-18. BY G.P. SRI. P.K. BABU. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K. MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W. A. No. 1494 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. This Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge. Appellant was awarded a sub-contract by the second respondent for construction of a railway over-bridge. Appellant could not complete the work in terms of the contract. Still the second respondent agreed to make certain payments for so much of the work executed and for the value of materials supplied. Termination agreement is produced as Ext.P10. WPC was filed for implementation of the said contract under direction this Court. The learned single Judge directed payment of the balance amount in terms of the contract. Dissatisfied with this direction, appellant has filed this appeal specifically for a direction from this Court to grant interest also on the amount payable under Ext.P10. Government Pleader and respondents' counsel opposed it stating that second respondent is not liable to pay any interest. We are in agreement with the objection raised by respondents because written 2 agreement between the parties does not provide for any interest on the amount payable under the said agreement. So much so, there is no scope for entertaining the ground raised in the appeal. Consequently appeal is dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (V.K. MOHANAN) Judge. kk 3