KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR versus KURIEN E. KALATHIL AND ANR.

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 511 · Decided: 09-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
511
[2018] 11  S.C.R. 511
         511
KERALA STATE  ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.
v.
KURIEN E. KALATHIL AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3164-3165 of 2017)
MARCH 09, 2018
[RANJAN GOGOI AND  R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
Contract – Contract between appellant and respondent for
construction of dam – Notification issued escalating minimum wages
payable to workers – Writ petition filed by respondent claiming
labour escalation charges with interest as per Ex.P-20 – While the
petition was pending, appellant terminated the contract – Writ
petition filed by respondent challenging the same and seeking
payment of works done as per Ex.P59, allowed directing the
appellant to pay the amounts as claimed u/Ex.P-20 and Ex.P-59  –
Challenged by appellant in C.A.No.4092 of 2000, but Supreme Court
declined to interfere – Appellant paid an amount of Rs.12,82,96,320/-
– However, three years thereafter, respondent filed I.A.No.6 of 2006
before Supreme Court on which it was granted liberty to move High
Court for recovery of the disputed amount – Writ petition filed by
respondent before High Court, allowed – Issue as to mode of
appropriation of payments made by the appellant and claim for
subsequent interest – Held: By respondent’s own statement, he had
adjusted all payments received from the appellant firstly towards
the labour escalation due i.e. the principal amount – But, when
respondent filed I.A.No.6 of 2006, the entire method of calculation
was changed by showing adjustment of payments firstly towards
interest and then towards principal, only to claim that in spite of
payment of Rs.12,82,96,320/- by the appellant, amounts were still
due and payable to him – This important aspect of change in the
method of adjustment/appropriation was lost sight by High Court –
Respondent not justified in changing the method of calculation –
High Court’s direction to the appellant to make payment u/Ex.P20
to the respondent, set aside – Further, direction of High Court to
pay future interest on the claims made u/Ex.P59, also set aside –
Judgment of High Court set aside – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
– Or. XXI, r.1.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.34(2) – Interest – Payment
of – Contract between appellant and respondent for construction
of dam – Notification issued escalating minimum wages payable to
workers – Writ petitions filed by respondent claiming labour
escalation charges with interest as per Ex.P-20 and for payment of
works done as per Ex.P59, allowed – Challenged by appellant in
C.A.No.4092 of 2000 – Supreme Court declined to interfere –
Another writ petition filed by respondent inter alia claiming interest
on amounts payable u/Ex.P20 and Ex.P59, allowed  – Held: Under
sub-s.(2) of s.34, where a decree is silent as to payment of further
interest on the principal sum, it shall be deemed to have been refused
– In the present case, since there was no direction for future interest
either by High Court or Supreme Court, in view of sub-s.(2) of s.34,
it must be deemed that the court had refused such interest – Direction
of High Court to pay subsequent interest u/Ex.P20 and u/Ex.P59 is
set aside.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.89 – Reference to arbitration
– Agreement between appellant and respondent-contractor for
construction of dam – Dispute between parties inter alia regarding
claims of additional work u/Ex.P59 – High Court with the oral
consent of the counsel for the parties without written instruction
from the party, referred the parties to arbitration – Held: Since
referring the parties to arbitration has serious consequences of
taking them away from the stream of civil courts and subject them
to the rigour of arbitration proceedings, in the absence of arbitration
agreement, the court can refer them to arbitration only with written
consent of parties either by way of joint memo or joint application
– There was no arbitration agreement between the parties – High
Court ought not to have referred the parties to arbitration –
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.7.
Constitution of India– Art.136 – Jurisdiction under, of
Supreme Court– Held: In exercise of jurisdiction u/Art.136, Supreme
Court does not normally re-appreciate the evidence and findings of
fact; but where the findings of High Court are perverse or the
findings are likely to result in excessive hardship, Supreme Court
would not decline to interfere merely on the ground that findings in
question are findings of fact.
A

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