K.C. SKARIA versus THE GOVT. OF STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 274 · Decided: 10-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K.C. SKARIA 
v. 
THE GOVT. OF STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. 
JANUARY 10, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 20 Rule 16-Suit for rendition of accounts between principal and 
C agent-Decree in-Contractor and State entered into a contract for construction 
work--Contractor filed suit claiming Rs. 2 lacs with interest thereon alleging 
that the State committed delays, defaults and breach of contract--Trial court 
decreed the suit-But High Court dismissed the suit in entirety holding that 
a suit by an independent contractor for rendition of accounts by the employer 
D was not maintainable-Correctness of-Held: A suit for rendition of accounts 
can be maintained only if a person suing has a right to receive an account 
from the defendant- -Independent contractor is neither an agent of the employer 
nor the claim for rendition of accounts supported by equity-Right for rendition 
of accounts is also not recognized or created b_v any statute in favour of the 
independent contractor-Hence suit for rendition of accounts not 
E maintainable-However, merely the independent contractor also chose to seek 
accounts, he cannot be non-suited--Trial court "s decree for Rs. 2 lacs with 
interest of Rs. 1,000 thereon restl.8ed-Kera/a Court Fees and Suits Valuation 
Act, 1959, S. 35--Contract Act, 1872, S. 213. 
F 
Section 149-DeficienLy of Court-fees--Power to make up-Plaintiff 
filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2 lacs with interest and valued the suit 
accordingly for the purpose of c·ourt-fee -The trial court held that the actual 
value of work done was Rs. 5,33,560 but decreed the suit for Rs. 2 lacs with 
interest thereon as the plaintiff claimed only Rs. 2 lacs and paid court-fee 
thereon-Plaintiff. in appeal, claimed Rs. 5,33,560 which was found due and 
G sought permission to pay deficit court-fee- -Permissibility o.f-Held: Section 
149 applied only in respect of the court-fee payable at the time of institution 
of the suit-Section 149 has no application where the court-fee, due on the 
plaint as per the valuation of the suit, isful~v paid, but subsequently it is found 
that a larger amount is due to the plai111iff-P/ai111ijf can increase the claim 
H 
274 
t 
'" 
; 
K.CSKARIA v. THE GOVT. OF STATE OF KERALA 
275 
only by seeking amendment of plaint and paying additional court-fee on the A 
amended claim-SectiOn 149 is also applicable to such amended claim-But 
then such amendment would depend on limitation and may not be permitted 
after the period of limitation-Hence trial court rightly decreed the suit for 
Rs. 2 lacs with interest thereon. 
The respondent-State invited tenders for execution of a construction B 
.. , 
work. An agreement was executed between the respondent-State as the 
employer and the appellant as the contractor. The contract required the 
work to be completed within 18 months from the date of handing over 
the site. The appellant-contractor submitted a bill for Rs. 5,36,800. It was 
not paid. In spite of delay in payment an\! other breaches by the c 
department, the appellant proceeded with the work and completed a 
substantial portion of the work. Ultimately a payment of Rs. 4,04,628 was 
made. 
~ 
The appellant filed a suit against the respondent-employer for 
recovery of Rs. 2 lacs towards the amount due for work done and paid D 
the court fee on this amount. During the pendency of the suit, the 
Department passed an order terminating the contract at the risk and cost 
of the appellant. 
The trial court decreed the suit in part and held that the Department 
committed breach by causing delays on various counts, thereby preventing E 
the appellant from completing the work. The trial court held that though 
the amount due towards the work done was Rs. 5,33,560, as the appellant 
had claimed only a sum of Rs. 2 lacs on that count and paid court fee 
thereon, the appellant was entitled to a decree for Rs. 2 lacs only towards 
the value .of work done. 
F 
The appellant filed an appeal before the High Court contending that 
the suit ought to have been decreed for Rs. 5,33,560, which was found due, 
instead of Rs. 2,00,000 by permitting him to pay the deficit cou·rt fee in 
regard to the balance amount. The High Court dismissed the suit in 
entirety holding that a suit by an independent contractor for rendition of G 
'"' 
accounts by the employer was not maintainable. Hence the appeal. 
The following questions arose before the Court:-· 
(i) Whether the appellan

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.