[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
M/S.Betcons Project Consultants Pvt. ... vs Kinfra International Apparel Parks Ltd on 19 January, 2026
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2026:KER:4617
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 29TH POUSHA, 1947
RFA NO. 71 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2013 IN OS NO.802 OF 2011 OF
III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM
-----
APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 M/S.KINFR INTERNATIONAL APPAREL PARKS LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT KERALA INDUSTRIAL
INFRASTRUCTRURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KINFRA HOUSE,
TC 31/2312, SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM-692 010 AND
REGISTERED OFFICE AT KINFRA INTERNATIONAL APPAREL PARKS
LTD., TRIVANDRUM - 695 586 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR.
2 M/S.KITCO LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PB
NO.1820, RAVIPURAM, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN - 16REPRESENTED BY
ITS DIRECTOR.
BY ADV P.U.SHAILAJAN, SC, KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE
TEXTILE FEDERATION LTD
2026:KER:4617
RFA NO. 71 OF 2015 -2-
RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
M/S.BETCONS PROJECT CONSULTANTS PVT.LTD.,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CHALIKKAVATTOM JUNCTION, MYTHRI
LANE, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI - 682 019, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
SRI.K.V.GEORGE
SRI.P.S.GIREESH
SMT.C.G.PREETHA
SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
19.01.2026, ALONG WITH CO.57/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:4617
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 29TH POUSHA, 1947
CO NO. 57 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2013 IN OS NO.802 OF 2011 OF
III ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM
-----
CROSS OBJECTOR/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:
M/S.BETCONS PROJECT CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD.
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CHALIKKAVATTOM JUNCTION,
MYTHRI LANE,VYTTILA.P.O,KOCHI-682019,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
SRI.K.V.GEORGE
SRI.P.S.GIREESH
SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 KINFRA INTERNATIONAL APPAREL PARKS LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMAPANIES ACT 1956
AND HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT KERALA INDUSTRIAL
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,KINFRA HOUSE,
TC 31/2312,SASTHAMANGALAM,TRIVANDRUM-695010 AND
REGISTERED OFFICE AT KINFRA INTERNATIONAL APPAREL PARKS
LTD, ST.XAVIERS COLLEGE.P.O,THUMBA,TRIVANDRUM-695586
AND PROJECT OFFICE AT KINFRA TEXTILE CENTRE,
NADUKANI,PALLIVAYAL.P.O,THALIPARAMBA,KANNUR
DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2026:KER:4617
CO NO. 57 OF 2015 -2-
2 M/S.KITCO LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT P.B.NO.1820, RAVIPURAM,
M.G.ROAD,KOCHI-682016,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADV SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
THIS CROSS OBJECTION/CROSS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING
ON 19.01.2026, ALONG WITH RFA.71/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:4617
SATHISH NINAN &
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.F.A. No.71 of 2015 &
Cross Objection No.57 of 2015
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2026
J U D G M E N T
Sathish Ninan, J.
The plaintiffs are in appeal and the defendant is in cross
objection challenging the dismissal of the suit and the counter
claim. The suit is one for damages and the counter claim is for
recovery of money being the value of work done under a contract.
2. The second plaintiff invited tenders for the supply and
laying of pipelines and for construction of overhead water tanks
for the first plaintiff. The defendant was the successful
tenderer. Ext.A5 is the agreement dated 09.11.2007, entered into
between the parties. The period of the contract was 12 months.
3. Alleging delay in execution of the contract, the second
plaintiff issued Ext.A14(b) show cause notice to the defendant as
to why the contract shall not be terminated. This was followed by
Ext.A17 letter of termination dated 30.04.2008. On 23.10.2008,
R.F.A. No.71 of 2015 &
2026:KER:4617
the work was re-tendered and awarded to another contractor at a
higher rate. The suit is filed on 26.09.2011, for recovery of the
damages suffered, being the difference in the quoted rates.
4. The defendant alleged that the plaintiffs were
responsible for the delay and that the defendants have not
committed breach. The liability for damages, if any, was denied.
The defendant raised a counter claim for recovery of the value of
the work done under the contract.
5. The trial court dismissed the suit and counter claim as
barred by limitation.
6. We have heard learned counsel on either side.
7. The point that arises for determination is :-
Are the suit and the counter-claim barred by limitation?
8. The contract was terminated as per Ext.A17 notice dated
30.04.2008. The suit is filed only on 26.09.2011, which is beyond
three years from the date of termination. Article 55 of the
Limitation Act provides three years for filing a suit for damages
for breach of contract, the period to commence from the date on
which the contract was broken. The contract came to an end on
30.04.2008. The three year period started to run therefrom. The
R.F.A. No.71 of 2015 &
2026:KER:4617
suit filed beyond the said period is barred by limitation.
9. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is
that, damages resulted to the plaintiffs only when the work was
re-tendered on 23.10.2008, whereunder the work had to be awarded
for a much higher rate than that was awarded to the defendant.
Therefore, the three year period to recover the loss commences
only from 23.10.2008. We are unable to agree with the
contentions.
10. As noticed supra, on breach of contract the three year
limitation period for instituting a suit for damages runs from
the date on which the contract was broken. Re-tendering the work
at the sweet will and convenience of the plaintiffs resulting in
damages is not the point at which limitation runs. The very same
argument as is now put forward by the plaintiff, did not find
favour with this Court in Delta Foundations and Constructions v. Kerala State
Construction Corporation Ltd. (2003 (1) KLT 626). We are clear in our minds
that the plaint claim is barred by limitation.
11. The counter claim raised by the defendants is, towards
the value of the work done under the contract. For the same
reason upon which the plaint claim is found to be time-barred,
R.F.A. No.71 of 2015 &
2026:KER:4617
the counter claim is also bound to fail.
There is no merit in the appeal and the cross objection. The
appeal and the cross objection are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. To Judge
