Kerala High Court
Kerala State Electricity Board vs M/S.Hindustan Company Ltd on 6 July, 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/19TH SRAVANA, 1938
SA.No. 432 of 2002 (B)
-----------------------
AGAINST THE DECREE & JUDGMENT IN AS 417/1991 of IST ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM DATED 06.07.2000
AGAINST THE DECREE & JUDGMENT IN OS 978/1988 of IST ADDITIONAL
MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM DATED 27.08.1991
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
---------------------------------
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CIVIL),
SOUTH VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, NOW RESESIGNATED AS
CHIEF ENGINEER(CONSTRUCTION CIVIL), THRISSUR.
BY ADV.SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
----------------------------------
M/S.HINDUSTAN COMPANY LTD.,
CONSTRUCTION HOUSE, WALCHAND HI RACHAND MARG,
BALLARD, ESTATE, BOMBAY REPRESETED BY
ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
SRI.KESAVAN NARAYAN NEW ADDRESS HINCON HOUSE,
LBS WING, VIKROLI (WEST), MUMBAI - 400 083
BY ADV. SMT.PRIYA MAHESH
ADV. SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN
THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-08-2016, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
-------------------------------
S.A.No.432 of 2002
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal is of the year 2002. But still, the appeal comes up in the list for admission. Heard. I have gone through the materials placed before this Court. Appellant, the Kerala State Electricity Board, challenges the findings of the lower appellate court in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. Respondent, M/s.Hindustan Construction Company Limited, filed the suit against the appellant with the following averments:
2. Respondent is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in civil construction activities.
A contract was entered into between the respondent and the appellant whereby the respondent undertook to construct concrete lined power tunnel of 12.09 kms length for Lower Periyar Hydro Electric Project. Ext.A1 is the agreement evidencing the terms and conditions of the contract. There S.A.No.432/2002 2 were some disputes between the appellant and the respondent, and the appellant, on 12.04.1988, issued a letter (Ext.A4) intimating their intention to recover amounts from the respondent. Therefore, the respondent approached the court below with the suit for injunction. After considering the evidence, the court below dismissed the suit. In the appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the decree and granted a permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant from recovering any amount by way of cost of cement and steel already supplied to the respondent for the construction of camp offices, water supply arrangements, etc.
3. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court. The evidence in the case was appreciated by the lower appellate court and found that the respondent is entitled to get a decree for injunction. It was specifically found that the quantity of cement, steel, etc. supplied had been utilized by the respondent in the construction activity for the appellant. This factual findings cannot be disputed in this second appeal.
S.A.No.432/2002 3
There is no substantial question of law arising in the appeal and hence it is dismissed.
Sd/-
A. HARIPRASAD
JV JUDGE