IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 AS.No. 571 of 1998(C) ------------------------------- [OS.NO.341/1993 OF III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE] .................... APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ROADS AND BRIDGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD ROADS AND BRIDGES, NORTH CIRCLE, NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BRIDGES DIVISION, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.B. RAMANAND. RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------- THE M/S. PADINJARAKARA BROTHERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER BABU P. ABRAHAM, S/O. P.M. ABRAHAM, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOOTHATTUKULAM IN ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, BUSINESS AND OFFICE AT KOOTHATTUKULAM IN ERNAKULAM. BY SRI.K.L.VARGHESE, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.MARTIN D.ALUMKARA, SMT.SANTHA VARGHESE. THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AS No.571 of 1998-C ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 2nd November 2010 Judgment Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal by the State of Kerala arises from a suit filed by a contractor, who carried out certain civil works in relation to the construction of R.C.C. foot bridge at Charakkadavu across Canolly Canal connecting Kadalundi Chelambra panchayats. 2. The plaintiff was the successful tenderer and though a time limit was initially fixed for completion of the work, the time was extended and ultimately, the work was cancelled on alleged breach. The plaintiff, therefore, sued for different amounts which it claimed as due and also for a declaration that the recession of the contract by the State is unsustainable. 3. In defence, the State put forward different grounds including that it was the plaintiff who attributed to AS 571/98 2 the delay in carrying out the work. It had failed to carry out the work in time after settling the necessary issues. 4. The court below heard the evidence of PW1 and DWs 1 and 2 and had Exts.A1 to A26 and B1 to B42 marked as the documentary evidence on record. 5. Before us, we find that the short question that arises for consideration is whether the court below had acted illegally in ordering return of the retention amounts, the security deposit and the admitted bill amounts as the bills having been prepared in accordance with the M- books and also whether the 12% interest granted by the court below is justified or not. 6. Different materials among the documentary evidence relied on by the court below obviously lead only to the conclusion that the termination of the contract could not have been attributed solely to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants did not have the entitlement to hold back the retention amount or to forfeit the security deposit. Having found that the plaintiff is entitled to the amounts covered by AS 571/98 3 the bills which were found due on the basis of the measurements recorded in the M-books, we do not find any illegality in the appreciation of evidence or otherwise, in the court below having granted the impugned decree. We also do not find that the grant of 12% interest is excessive having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, no grounds are made out warranting interference with the judgment and decree of the court below. The appeal is without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta AS 571/98 4 AS 571/98 5