Case Summary
The plaintiffs, George N.P and his son Joshi N.G, are seeking to recover an outstanding payment from the defendants, Joseph T.G, Sherin T.J, and Ligesh. The case revolves around a construction contract and additional works requested by the defendants that remain unpaid.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The suit is dismissed, and the counter claim is decreed in part. The plaintiffs are ordered to pay the defendants a sum along with interest.
Key Reasoning:
The plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claim for additional payments, and the defendants proved that they did not owe the claimed sum.
The plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claim for additional payments, and the defendants proved that they did not owe the claimed sum.
Why Defendant Won:
The plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claim for additional payments, and the defendants proved that they did not owe the claimed sum.
The plaintiffs failed to substantiate their claim for additional payments, and the defendants proved that they did not owe the claimed sum.
Supporting Evidence
Evidence from the expert commission showed that the actual value of the work done by the contractor was less than alleged, and the defendants had valid claims to further payments.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, the suit is dismissed and the counter claim is decreed in part as follows. Plaintiff shall pay the defendants Rs. 1,47,741/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the suit till date of the decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till realisation.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- George N.P
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Joshi N.G
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Joseph T.G
- Party Age
- 60
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sherin T.J
- Party Age
- 35
- Relation
- D/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Ligesh
- Party Age
- 40
- Relation
- S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Agreement dated 05.06.15, Completion certificate, Occupancy certificate, Bill dated 04.12.15, Bill dated 05.12.15
Defendants Documents
Agreement dated 05.06.15, Bills dated 19.12.15, 25.12.15, 27.12.15
Advocates
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- N.C.Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- K.Antony Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- M.P.Rexy
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- T.K.Radhakrishnan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Chithra R Shenoy
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Harikrishnan T.R
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Sreedevi S
- Appearance Type
- Assisting Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Recovery
Outcome:
Partly Granted
Description:
Plaintiff sought recovery of the outstanding amount from the defendants.
Evidence:
Defendants are found entitled to Rs. 1,47,741/- being the difference between the total amount paid by the defendants and the value of the work done by the contractor as valued by the expert.
Relief Type:
Interest
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants sought interest on the amount due.
Evidence:
Court is inclined to allow a reasonable rate of interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit till date of the decree and at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till realisation.
Relief Type:
Costs
Outcome:
Granted
Description:
Defendants claimed costs for the suit.
Evidence:
Defendant is found entitled for costs.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Agreement
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document outlines the initial contract for construction between the plaintiffs and the defendants.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type:
Building Permit
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
A copy of the building permit that was required for the construction.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type:
Completion Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document certifying that the construction has been completed.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type:
Occupancy Certificate
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Proof that the building was deemed suitable for occupancy by local authorities.
Reference:
Ext.A4
Document Type:
Bill
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Detailed bill of additional works carried out and the costs associated.
Reference:
Ext.A5
Document Type:
Bill
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Final bill submitted by the plaintiffs detailing the total payment due.
Reference:
Ext.A6
Document Type:
Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Notice sent regarding the payment and completion of work.
Reference:
Ext.A7
Document Type:
Reply Notice
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Response to the defendants regarding their claims.
Reference:
Ext.A8
Document Type:
Payment details
Submitted By:
Plaintiff
Relevance:
Document detailing payments made and outstanding amounts.
Reference:
Ext.A9
Document Type:
Agreement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
The original agreement for construction outlining the responsibilities of both parties.
Reference:
Ext.B1
Document Type:
Bill
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Bill related to the construction works.
Reference:
Ext.B2
Document Type:
Bill
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Another bill related to work done under the contract.
Reference:
Ext.B3
Document Type:
Bill
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Bill dated 19.12.2015 for works done.
Reference:
Ext.B4
Document Type:
Last portion of agreement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Shows payment details related to the agreement.
Reference:
Ext.B5
Document Type:
Last portion of agreement
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Details regarding additional payments outlined in the agreement.
Reference:
Ext.B5(a)
Document Type:
Bill
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Bill submitted by the defendants for work.
Reference:
Ext.B6
Document Type:
Bill
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Another bill submitted for payment related to construction.
Reference:
Ext.B7
Document Type:
Inspection report
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Report regarding inspection done by the local authorities.
Reference:
Ext.B8
Document Type:
Consumer Forum Case
Submitted By:
Defendant
Relevance:
Copy of the case filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
Reference:
Ext.B9
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Report by the Advocate Commissioner regarding the disputes.
Reference:
Ext.C1
Document Type:
Photos
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Photos taken during site inspection by the Advocate Commissioner.
Reference:
Ext.C1 series
Document Type:
Expert Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
Expert report detailing the valuation of works claimed.
Reference:
Ext.C2
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Money and Loan Recovery
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between George N.P, Joshi N.G vs Joseph T.G, Sherin T.J, Ligesh regarding recovery of money
Case Code Year
Case between George N.P, Joshi N.G vs Joseph T.G, Sherin T.J, Ligesh regarding recovery of money