Fact Engineering & Design Organisation ... vs Corporation Of Cochin
2026 Latest Caselaw 1156 Ker

Kerala High Court

Fact Engineering & Design Organisation ... vs Corporation Of Cochin on 4 February, 2026

Author: Sathish Ninan

Bench: Sathish Ninan

                                              2026:KER:9376

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

                                &

         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR

 WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 15TH MAGHA, 1947

                       RFA NO. 387 OF 2016

   AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 23.01.2016 IN OS

    NO.503 OF 2011 OF I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM

APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

         FACT ENGINEERING & DESIGN ORGANISATION (FEDO)
         A DIVISION OF THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS
         TRAVANCORE LIMITED, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
         ENTERPRISE, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
         UDYOGAMANDAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT GENERAL
         MANAGER, MANUAL ZACKRIAS.

         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
         SHRI.BENNY P. THOMAS (SR.)
         SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
         SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
         SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2:

    1    CORPORATION OF COCHIN
         KOCHI-682 011, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

    2    MS. ANDHRA PRADESH TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND
         PROMOTION
                                                 2026:KER:9376

R.F.A.No.387 of 2016
                             -: 2 :-



            CENTRE (APTDC), REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
            HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO.7, 1-11-
            252/9, 2ND FLOOR, REGAL HOUSE, MOTILAL NEHRU
            NAGAR,BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD-500 016.

            BY ADV SHRI.D.G.VIPIN

THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
04.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                    2026:KER:9376




             SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                      R.F.A.No.387 of 2016
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
            Dated this the 4th day of February, 2026

                            JUDGMENT

Sathish Ninan, J.

Challenging the dismissal of the suit for money, the

plaintiff is in appeal.

2. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the 1 st

defendant to provide consultancy services for setting up a

solid waste treatment plant. The plaintiff was to prepare

technical and financial documents and supervising

implementation of the project. The 2nd defendant is the

contractor for the work, having entered into an agreement in

the said regard with the 1st defendant. According to the

plaintiff, the contract was performed and the project was

completed. The suit is for the unpaid value of the work done

by the plaintiff under the contract.

2026:KER:9376

3. The 1st defendant, did not deny the contract, and

that the plant was set up. The contention is that there were

various defects in the plant and that it is not functioning

properly.

4. The trial court held that the work done under the

supervision of the plaintiff was faulty, and accordingly

dismissed the suit.

5. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.

6. In the nature of the order we propose to pass, it

is unnecessary to go into the minute factual details. The

establishment of the plant pursuant to the agreement is not

in dispute. It is on record that there has been a change in

the site; though dry land was to be provided, the site

provided was marshy land. The steps suggested by the

plaintiff for developing the land, was not adhered to by the

1st defendant. The trial court has repeatedly found the 1 st

defendant at fault, of course along with the plaintiff.

Ext.B14 is the report of an expert. The report narrates the 2026:KER:9376

defective works, rectification possibilities, etc. The

relevant portions of the report, which deal with the same,

read thus:

"Defective works that can be Retained technically

(i) Those columns which have undergone settlement. However, these columns shall be monitored regularly to ensure that there is no further deterioration in the situation.

(ii) Those columns that are out of plumb.

(iii) Tie beams at roof level that are not in proper alignment may be retained.

Deduction in payment shall be effected towards rectification of these items.

Defective works to be rectified

(i) The floors of buildings in the MSWDF that are cracked and have settled are to be completely dismantled and reconstructed to the original line and levels.

(ii) Defective drains for conveying storm water and leachate have to repaired and made good or relaid.

(iii) Those parapet walls which have cracked, settled or are not in alignment are to be demolished and reconstructed to the original line and levels.

(iv) Defects in the machinery for processing, compost have to be rectified.

Incomplete works (I) Providing cladding to buildings 2026:KER:9376

(ii) Sump of the ETP

(iii) ETP

(iv) Roads

(v) Green belt development

(vi) Secured landfill

(vii) Laboratory facilities.

(viii) Manuals and documents."

7. Noticeably, the report mentions of certain defects,

which are rectifiable. The plaintiff has a case that, the

issues which contributed to the defects noted by the expert

were duly taken up with the 1 st defendant, but were not

heeded to. Exts. A17 to 20 letters and Ext.21 email

communications are some among them.

8. The fact that the plant was commissioned and had

been functioning, is not in dispute. The defect/deficiency

and the consequent loss suffered by the 1 st defendant could

have formed a subject of a claim against the plaintiff. May

be, in the given circumstances, the 1st defendant would be

entitled to challenge the claim of the plaintiff alleging 2026:KER:9376

deficiency for defects; but necessarily, that has to be with

reference to details and quantum of damages. The plant

having been commissioned and the defendants having utilised

the same, they cannot be heard to say that the plaintiff is

not entitled to raise any claim for the unpaid value of the

work done. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the entire

value or only a part thereto, whether the damages suffered

by the first defendant exceeds the same, all depends upon

the evidence. Admittedly, there has been no such enquiry.

The plaint claim as such could not have been rejected solely

on the ground of defect/deficiency. It appears that the

trial court was carried away by Exts.B13 and B15 series

photographs which did not relate to the entire plant. The

decree and judgment of the trial court, dismissing the

plaint, is liable to be interfered with.

9. We deem it appropriate to grant an opportunity to

the parties to amend their pleadings and to adduce further

evidence regarding deficiency/defects and damages.

2026:KER:9376

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The decree and

judgment of the trial court are set aside. The suit is

remanded back to the trial court for disposal de novo. The

court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal shall be refunded

to the appellant.

Parties to appear before the trial court on 19.02.2026.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

Sd/-

P. KRISHNA KUMAR JUDGE yd