Chacko and ors. Vs. State of Kerala

- section 30: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] setting aside of award arbitrator taken into consideration ultimate contract and found that four letters which were said to be sole repository of contract formed part thereof - on the basis of said letters arbitrator concluded in respect of first claim of contractor that concluded contract took place and he was entitled to additional payment of 2.25% over and above quoted rates - similarly in relation to claim no.2 arbitrator found that fact that claimant received payment only at rate of 21% towards labour escalation would not preclude claimant from claiming at 40% as per contract, particularly, when it was clearly mentioned in one of the letters that 40% will be labour component which forms part of contract held, high court setting aside of said award is illegal. section 30: [s.b.sinha & cyriac joseph,jj] setting aside of award extra payment of labour involved in construction of high rise building - dispute as to held, what would constitute a high rise building was defined. a portion of the building cannot be high rise and a portion would fall within the purview of the said definition. the opinion of the arbitrator that the same workers may have to work for constructions of the entire building as it will be impossible for any contractor to employ any workmen to work exclusively for the high rise building was proper. furthermore, the same workmen may have to work in different parts of the same building at different times. it would lead to an absurd situation if the workmen at one point of time are not paid the 20% of the excess amount and then paid the same and yet again denied the same benefit. k.t. thomas, j.1. there is no scope for any right of private defence merely on the premise that soman, the deceased reached the scene armed with a chopper. the prosecution version is that soman reached there when he found that his brother -kunjumon was in great peril as surrounded by armed assailants. no aggressor can claim a right of private defence -this is a settled position.2. out of 9 accused found guilty by the trial court, the division bench of the high court picked out only 4 of them as the identification and involvement of them alone have been established by the witnesses.3. we have considered the evidence and we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the high court does not require any interference by us. accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.4. we are told that accused no. 4 (mathew @ mathan s/o chacko) has died during the pendency of this appeal we direct the other appellants (who are ar reigned as accused no. 1 - chacko s/o varghese, accused no. 3 - manikuttan and accused no. 5 - chacko s/o chacko) to surrender to their bail. we also direct the sessions judge, alappuzha to take prompt steps to put those accused back in jail for undergoing the remaining portion of the sentence.