LexKERALA STATE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY MUSEUM versus RAMBAL COMPANY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• - - KERALA STATE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY MUSEUM A v. RAMBAL COMPANY AND ORS. AUGUST 2, 2006 [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] B Practice and procedure: Reference-Made on a specific question by Single Judge to Division Bench-Held: Bench must decide that question only and not the one not C referred. The respondent no.I had entered into an agreement with appellant- Society for construction of a building. Dispute arose between them and the appellant terminated the agreement on the allegation of breach of D contract by respondent no.I. Appellant issued a notice dated 6.Il.I990 which was duly replied by respondent no.I. On I2.1.1998, respondent no.l received demand notice from Deputy Tehsildar under Section 34 of Revenue Recovery Act. Respondent no.I filed Writ Petition before High Court seeking E quashing of the demand notice, which came up for hearing before Single Judge. Respondent no.I had raised contentions before Single Judge that since breach of contract is not admitted, the appellant cannot unilaterally assess the damage alleged to have sustained by it on account of the alleged default on the part of respondent no.I; that the entire proceedings are time-barred. Stand of the appellant was that it is a society owned by the F State and, therefore, Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable and in that view, the demand raised is well within time. In view of the nature of the contentions raised, Single Judge placed the matter before a Division Bench. The Division Bench proceeded on the basis as if the main question that arose for consideration was that when a breach of conditions of a contract is not admitted, whether is open for the contractee to adjudicate upon the disputed question of breach as well as to assess the damages 243 G H 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A arising from the breach and held that one of the contracting parties cannot adjudicate upon a disputed question of breach as well as assess the damage arising from the breach. Aggrieved appellant filed the present appeal. B Dispos;ng of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court HELD: It is fairly well settled that when reference is made on a specific issue either by a Single Judge or Division Bench to a larger Bench i.e. Division Bench or Full Bench or Constitution Bench, as the case may be, the Larger Bench cannot adjudicate upon an issue which is not the C question referred. In the instant case, there was no reference to Division Bench. The Single Judge felt that in view of the contentions, a Division Bench should hear the case. Unfortunately the Division Bench did not consider the contentions which were raised before the Single Judge. It also did not record any positive finding as to whether the document relied upon by the appellant clearly established admission of a breach of contract. The D basic issue related to the question whether the demand was barred by limitation, which the Division Bench of the High Court did not examine. 1248-C-D-E; 249-B-DI Kesha Nath Khurana v. Union of India and Ors .. ( 19811 Supp. SCC 38; Samaresh Chandra Bose v. The District Magistrate, Burdwan and Ors., E 1197212sec476 and K.C.P. ltd. v. State Trading Corporation of India and Anr., (19951 Supp. (3) SCC 466, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4854 of2000. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.2000 of the High Court of F Kerala at Emakulam, in O.P. No. 73815 of 1999. G H WITH C.A. No. 3211 of 2006. Harish Beeran, N. Rao and Radha Shyam Jena for the Appellant. Beena Prakash, G. Prakash and B.V. Deepak (for T.K. Deepak & Co.) for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment - - - ... KERALA STATE SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY MUSEUM 1•. RAMBAL COMPANY [PASA Y AT, J.] 245 of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court holding that quantification of A damages done and demanded from the respondent No. I cannot be legally sustained and accordingly they were set aside. The writ petition was directed to be placed before the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge. But the question referred by learned Single Judge i.e. question of limitation was left open to be adjudicated by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. B The background facts in a nutshell are as follows :- The respondent No. I had entered into Ext. PI agreement with the appel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.