LexDHARMARTH TRUST J & K JAMMU & ORS. versus DINESH CHANDER NANDA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 1101 DHARMARTH TRUST J & K JAMMU & ORS. v. DINESH CHANDER NANDA (Civil Appeal No. 7465 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 08, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.) A B Jammu and Kashmir Limitation Act, 1995 - Articles 56 and 119 - Suit by architect against trust claiming certain amount towards professional charges - Issue as regards C maintainability/limitation - Contention by the trust that suit is governed by Article 56 and was barred by limitation on 'the date of its institution - Courts below holding that suit is governed by Article 119 and not Article 56 - Interference with - Held: Not called for - Services provided by architect are D taxable under the Service Tax laws - Term 'work done' as appearing in Article 56 does not apply to architect providing services for a fee, thus Article 56 not applicable. Words and Phrases: Terms 'price' and 'work done' - E Meaning of - In the context of Article 56 of the Jammu and Kashmir Limitation Act, 1995. The respondent-architect .filed a suit against the appellant-trust claiming certain amount towards professional charges including interest for various F projects. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent filed application for the amendment of the plaint. The issue was raised regarding the maintainability/limitation of the application. The trial court held that the case was governed by Article 119 and not by Article 56 of the G Jammu and Kashmir Limitation Act, 1995 and allowed the amendment to the plaint. The appellant-trust filed a revision petition. The appellant-trust contended that the suit was governed by Article 56 of the Act and the same 1101 H .:, I 1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 OJ 10 S.C.R. A was barred by limitation on the date of its institution. The High Court upheld the order passed by the trial court. Therefore, the appellant-trust filed the instant appeal. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The term 'work done' as appearing in Article 56 of the Jammu and Kashmir Limitation Act, 1995 does not apply to the respondent, who is an architect providing services for a fee. [Para 12] [1110-F-G] c 1.2 The term 'price', as appearing in Article 56 of the Act, is to be understood in common parlance/ordinary or normal sense. It takes its colour from the meaning attached to the term 'price' in the Articles immediately preceding 'Articles 52 to 55'. 'Price' does not cover the 0 services provided by the professionals such as architect, lawyer, doctor etc., as professionals charge a 'fee'. Also, the term 'work done' in Article 56 will not be applicable to professionals such as architect, lawyer, doctor etc. as these professionals render services to their clients. The E remuneration of a professional is in the form of a 'fee' and, therefore, it cannot be said that the professional earns a 'price'. In common usage, the term 'price' refers to goods sold. The term 'price' is used in Articles 52 to 55 in correlation to goods delivered, goods sold and delivered and trees or growing crops sold. In the said F way, 'price' would take a similar meaning when used in Article 56. [Paras 8 and 9] [1110-F-G] Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary; "Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary; Law Lexicon by P. G Ramanatha Iyer 2nd Edn. 1997 - referred to. H 1.3 The specific treatment of attorneys/vakils who provide professional services is a reflection of the intention of the Legislature to treat the services provided DHARMARTH TRUST J & K JAMMU & ORS. v. 1103 DINESH CHANDER NANDA by professionals differently from work done by others. A The word 'price' was never intended to be used synonymously with the word 'fee' and, therefore, the fee charged by an architect for services rendered by him would not be covered under Article 56 of the Act. In the instant case, the trial court as well as the High Court 8 made a clear distinction between the terms 'work done' and 'services'. The 'work done' would refer work done by masons such as land filling or engineering projects etc. [Para 11) [1109-F-H; 1110-A] 1.4 The services provided by an architect are taxable c. under the Service Tax law. Whereunder the architects are considered as persons providing a service and are liable to pay service tax. The term 'work done' has not been defined anywhere. [Para 12) [1110-D] 1.5 The claim of the respondent that the profession of an Architect is one such service, hence Article 56 is not app
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.