Part No.II - Supreme Court of India

R.L. KALATHIA & CO. v. STATE OF GUJARAT
Chairman and MD, NTPC Ltd. vs. Reshmi Constructions,
Builders & Contractors, 2004 (1) SCR 62 = (2004) 2 SCC
663; Ambica Construction vs. Union of India, 2006 (9) Suppl.
SCR 188 = (2006) 13 SCC 475; National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Boghara Polyfab Private Ltd., 2008 (13)
SCR 638 = (2009) 1 SCC 267 – relied on
1.2 In the instant case, it is true that when the final
bill was submitted, the plaintiff had accepted the amount
as mentioned in the final bill but “under protest”. It is also
the specific claim of the plaintiff that on the direction of
the Department, it had performed additional work and,
therefore, was entitled to additional amount/damages as
per the terms of agreement. Merely because the plaintiff
had accepted the final bill, it cannot be deprived of its right
to claim damages if it had incurred additional amount and
able to prove the same by acceptable materials. From the
materials on record, it is evident that the appellant/plaintiff
had a genuine claim which was considered in great detail
by the trial court and supported by oral and documentary
evidence. The High Court has not adverted to any of the
factual details/claim of the plaintiff except reversing the
judgment and decree of the trial court on the principle of
estoppel. [paras 5 and 10] [398-G-H; 399-A; 402-E-F]
1.3 Though the matter could be remitted to the High
Court for consideration in respect of merits of the claim
and the judgment and decree of the trial court, inasmuch
as the work had been completed in August, 1973, final bill
was raised on 31.03.1974 and additional claim was raised
on 16.07.1976, to curtail the period of litigation, it would
be appropriate that this Court scrutinizes all the issues
framed by the trial court, its discussion and ultimate
conclusion based on the pleadings and supported by the
materials. Issue No. 15 in the trial court judgment related
to estoppel which has been decided in favour of the
plaintiff. In respect of other issues relating to execution
393 394
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.
of extra work, the trial court based its findings on the
materials placed, accepted certain items in toto and
rejected certain claims and, ultimately, rightly granted a
decree for a sum of Rs. 2,27,758/- with proportionate
costs and interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date
of the suit till realization and the plaintiff is entitled to the
said amount. The impugned judgment of the High Court
is set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court
restored. [paras 10-12] [402-F-H; 403-A-B; 404-F-H; 405-
A-B]
Case Law Reference:
2004 (1) SCR 62 relied on para 6
2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 188 relied on para7
2008 (13 ) SCR 638 relied on para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3245 of 2003.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2002 of the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in first Appeal No. 2038
of 1983.
Altaf Ahmed, Bhargava V. Desai and Rahul Gupta for the
Apellant.
Madhi Divan, Hemantika Wahi and Jesal for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the
judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High
Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982
passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State
Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and