K.R. Raveendranathan Vs. State Of Kerala
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 2206-2211 of 1997
Petitioner: K.R. Raveendranathan
Respondent: State Of Kerala
Apeal: Civil Appeals Nos. 2206-2211 of 1997
Judges: A.M. AHMADI, C.J. & K.S. PARIPOORNAN & S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 19, 1997
Head Note:
CONTRACT
Contract Act, 1872
Constitution of Contract – Court’s power to declare it contrary to contract and without jurisdiction. Held that in view of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd’s case (JT 1992 (4) SC 459) the court could not have done so. Hence, appeals allowed. High Court orders set aside.
Cases Reffered:
1.Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of J&K JT 1992 (4) SC 459
2. Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Government of Kerala JT 1989 (1) SC 339
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the question in issue in the present appeals is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of J&K ( JT 1992 (4) SC 459) JT 1992 (4) SC 459. In particular, it drew our attention to para 10 of the judgment and the portion extracted from the decision in Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Government of Kerala. JT 1989 (1) SC 339 case wherein it was said that by purporting to construe the contract the Court could not take upon itself the burden of saying that this was contrary to the contract and, as such, beyond jurisdiction. That is exactly what the Court has done in the instant case. Therefore, the issue stands covered by this decision and the learned counsel for the respondents could not in the face of this decision argue otherwise.
3. In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court with no order as to costs.
1. Special leave granted.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the question in issue in the present appeals is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of J&K ( JT 1992 (4) SC 459) JT 1992 (4) SC 459. In particular, it drew our attention to para 10 of the judgment and the portion extracted from the decision in Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Government of Kerala. JT 1989 (1) SC 339 case wherein it was said that by purporting to construe the contract the Court could not take upon itself the burden of saying that this was contrary to the contract and, as such, beyond jurisdiction. That is exactly what the Court has done in the instant case. Therefore, the issue stands covered by this decision and the learned counsel for the respondents could not in the face of this decision argue otherwise.
3. In the result, we allow these appeals and set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court with no order as to costs.
