State of KeralA. Vs. PathummA.

State of KeralA. vs PathummA.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 09, 2010

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/913316

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/913316
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: M.N. Krishnan, J.
Decided On: Dec 09, 2010
Case Number: AS.No. 235 of 1995
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[Aftab Alam ; R.M. Lodha, JJ.] - Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 - Sections 8 - Prohibition of certain operations -- The suspected narcotic recovered from the appellant was seized under seizure memo, Exhibit P.22. The trial court by judgment and order dated 9.11.2005 passed in Special Case No.4/20...

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of KeralA.

Respondent

PathummA.

Excerpt

[aftab alam ; r.m. lodha, jj.] - narcotics drugs & psychotropic substance act, 1985 - sections 8 - prohibition of certain operations -- the suspected narcotic recovered from the appellant was seized under seizure memo, exhibit p.22. the trial court by judgment and order dated 9.11.2005 passed in special case no.4/2005 held all the three accused, including the appellant guilty of offences punishable under sections 8/21(b) of the ndps act and sentenced them as noted above. against the judgment of the trial court, the appellant preferred criminal appeal no.2511/2005 before the high court. the high court dismissed both the appeals by judgment and order dated april 17, 2008. the appellant alone has come in appeal against the judgment of the high court. the present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 10.12.2007 passed by the learned single judge of the high court of allahabad (lucknow bench) whereby the learned single judge has dismissed the tax revision filed by the appellant under section 11 of the u. p. trade tax act (hereinafter referred to as "the act") impugning the judgment dated 14.8.2007 passed by the trade tax tribunal, lucknow rejecting the second appeal of the appellant/assessee. the interest charge on the tax could not have been charged under section 8(1) as the case falls under section 8(1b). as in the present case the tax becomes admittedly payable once it has been held that the tax is payable under the act, the interest would be payable in terms of subsection (1) of section 8 of the act and not in terms of subsection (1b) of section 8 of the act. this court in the case of commissioner of sales tax v. qureshi crucible centre, 1993 supp (3) scc 495 has held that where a dealer fails to pay tax at the correct rate because he claimed not to know the revision in the rate, the dealer remains liable to pay interest at a higher rate, penal rate under section 8 (1) from the date when the tax became due and payable. 1. this appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the subordinate judge, ottapalam in o.s.42/91. the suit is one for realisation of the amount under a contract or work. the brief facts would reveal that the plaintiff has undertaken to do the original work under the lift irrigation scheme karalmanna. the original plaintiff has completed the work and it has been inspected and measured by the defendants. he could not do the road work for the reason the land was not made available and therefore as directed by the department he carried out extra work. though the department had taken the check measurement etc. they had not settled the final bill. but since the plaintiff has satisfactorily completed the work the security amount has been paid back and therefore the plaintiff prays for a decree as claimed in the plaint. 2. the defendants on the other hand would contend that there has been an inordinate delay in doing the work by the first plaintiff. he had not done it properly. he was directed to rectify the mistakes. he did not do it. similarly he had not returned the unused materials to the department and therefore amount is due from him to the department and so the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. 3. during the pendency of the suit the first plaintiff died and supplemental plaintiffs 2 to 8 and defendant no.6 has been impleaded as the legal representatives. 4. in the trial court exts.a1 to a1 (h) and b1 to b34 were marked. on an analysis of the evidence the trial court has granted a decree for rs.73,985/- with 6% interest from the date of suit till realisation in favour of the plaintiffs 2 to 8 and 6th defendant from defendants 1 to 5. it is against that decision the government have come up in appeal. 5. the point that arises for determination is whether there is anything to interfere with the decision of the trial court. i have perused the judgment and documents available in the case and proceed to dispose of the matter as follows. 6......

Full Judgment

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam in O.S.42/91. The suit is one for realisation of the amount under a contract or work. The brief facts would reveal that the plaintiff has undertaken to do the original work under the Lift Irrigation Scheme Karalmanna. The original plaintiff has completed the work and it has been inspected and measured by the defendants. He could not do the road work for the reason the land was not made available and therefore as directed by the Department he carried out extra work. Though the Department had taken the check measurement etc. they had not settled the final bill. But since the plaintiff has satisfactorily completed the work the security amount has been paid back and therefore the plaintiff prays for a decree as claimed in the plaint.

2. The defendants on the other hand would contend that there has been an inordinate delay in doing the work by the first plaintiff. He had not done it properly. He was directed to rectify the mistakes. He did not do it. Similarly he had not returned the unused materials to the Department and therefore amount is due from him to the Department and so the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.

3. During the pendency of the suit the first plaintiff died and supplemental plaintiffs 2 to 8 and defendant No.6 has been impleaded as the legal representatives.

4. In the trial court Exts.A1 to A1 (h) and B1 to B34 were marked. On an analysis of the evidence the trial court has granted a decree for Rs.73,985/- with 6% interest from the date of suit till realisation in favour of the plaintiffs 2 to 8 and 6th defendant from defendants 1 to 5. It is against that decision the Government have come up in appeal.

5. The point that arises for determination is whether there is anything to interfere with the decision of the trial Court. I have perused the judgment and documents available in the case and proceed to dispose of the matter as follows.

6. Admittedly the deceased first plaintiff was entrusted with the work of Lift Irrigation Scheme of Karalmanna. The completion certificate was given, the security amount was also reimbursed, measurements were taken but final bill was not cleared hence the suit. But the defendants would contend there was inordinate delay in completion of the work. He did not rectify the mistakes and further he did not return the materials supplied by the Department. The trial court found that the case of rectification which is seen in the file appears to be a subsequently cooked up one and did not accept the same.

7. According to the Department roof of slab of pump house is leaking heavily and one rolling shutter was damaged. The trial court found that the plaintiff has issued a lawyer notice to the defendants on 30.6.90 and thereafter only the 3rd defendant issued a letter to the 4th defendant on 25.10.90 to direct the plaintiff to rectify the defects. A letter was issued to the first plaintiff on 12.11.90 and the remainder on 17.12.90 to this the first plaintiff replied holding that he has no responsibility in the matter since he has completed the work during 1985-86. It can be seen that the completion certificate had been issued earlier and it was as early as on 26.9.88. So if really there remained any mistakes to be rectified it was found out as early as on 26.5.88. Under ordinary circumstances defendants 1 to 5 would not have kept quiet for a long period of two years that too till the receipt of a notice issued by the plaintiff claiming the amount. Therefore I also agree with the trial court finding that it is only a subsequently created one.

8. Similarly when a contract is undertaken and security is furnished under ordinary circumstances security deposit will not be released unless one satisfactorily completes the work as per the stipulations. But the Department has not followed this thing. As stated by me earlier after the issuance of the completion certificate on 26.9.88, a letter to rectify the mistakes comes only on 12.11.90 i.e. 2 years and 2 months after the issuance of the completion certificate. Therefore as rightly found by the trial court rectification work is only a subsequent development.

9. Now coming to the next point. In the original written statement there is no case for defendants 1 to 5 regarding the non-return of materials supplied by the department. It is only by way of an additional written statement it is raised. Whenever materials are supplied and if they are not returned there would be documents with the Department to establish that factor. So also if there is damage, amount due from the contractor towards the non return of the materials will be realised from the security amount. But the security amount is released without returning of the materials and it is not mentioned in the original written statement and therefore it is too late to raise a contention of that nature now. So rejection of the same by the trial court on that aspect also appears to be correct.

10. Now lastly regarding the demand of interest. The trial court has found that the plaintiff also has committed some delay in completion of the work and therefore the plaintiff cannot claim interest. Therefore the Court held that the entitlement of interest would be from the date of suit and not earlier. There also I do not find any error committed by the trial Court. On an overall analysis of the materials I find no ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the trial court and therefore the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. But under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2010 Same Parties State of KeralA. vs PathummA. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge M.N. Krishnan, J.

Land Acquisition