TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (8) TMI 635
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... referred by learned Single Judge i.e. question of limitation was left open to be adjudicated by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows :- The respondent No.1 had entered into Ext. P1 agreement with the appellant-Kerala State Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram which is a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary and Scientific Societies Registration Act, 1995, on 16.05.1988 for the construction of planetarium building of the Kerala State Science and Technology Museum and allied Civil Works. Dispute having arisen between the parties the agreement came to be terminated by Ext. P2 termination notice dated 03.11.1989 issued by the appellant. Ext. P2 was fol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the contrary, Ext. P1 specifically rules out arbitration as a mode of settlement of disputes or claims arising out of Ext. P1. Accepting the said contentions the High Court rejected the request. After the said order was passed by the High Court, the respondent No.1 filed writ petition, being O.P. No. 22633/98 to quash Ext. P4 demand notice and for other reliefs which came to be disposed of by judgment dated 17.11.98 directing the District Collector to consider and pass orders on the representation preferred by the respondent No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pending issuance of orders by the District Collector as aforesaid, the demand notice as evidenced by Ext. P4 was stayed. As a sequel to the judgm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e recovery proceedings. Stand of the first respondent (present appellant) it is a society owned by the State and, therefore, Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation Act') is applicable and in that view, the demand raised is well within time. In view of the nature of the contentions raised, learned Single Judge felt that the matter should be placed before a Division Bench. The Division Bench proceeded on the basis as if the main question that arose for consideration was where 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 arising from the breach. Though the High Court take note of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... company's letter referred above and offer the said work by our company. 1. We are ready to complete the work without any change in the rates for all times of work that we have agreed previously. 2. We are ready to complete the work in all aspects without even giving us any Mobilisation advance by the museum. 3. We request for an extension of 12 months time to complete the work in all respects and we will strive our level best to finish the same much in advance." It was further submitted that before the learned Single Judge it was not disputed that there was a breach of contract. In fact, the only point urged before learned Single Judge related to the question whether the claim was barred by time. Stand was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case. We find that before learned Single Judge there was practically no dispute that there was breach of conditions of contract. In fact learned Single Judge noted the position as follows: "The question of termination of contract with effect from 25.11.1989 is not disputed. Petitioner did not challenge the termination order. As per the terms of the contract, if it is re-tendered, the difference in the re-tender amount and the loss suffered have to be paid by the petitioner apart from the liquid damages." (Underlined for emphasis) The learned Single Judge also noted that the main contention of the writ petitioner was that the amount demanded was time barred. Reference was made to Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue ....