V. R. SUBRAMANYAM versus B. THAYAPPA AND OTHERS.

V. R. SUBRAMANYAM versus B. THAYAPPA AND OTHERS.

The respondent is entitled to compensation for additional work not covered by the written contract as the work was not done gratuitously; even failure to prove an oral agreement does not bar compensation under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act.

Parties
Appellant: V. R. Subramanyam; Respondents: B. Thayappa and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 February 1961
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals / Appeal by Special Leave Under Article 136 of the Constitution From Mysore High Court Judgment and Decree
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs. One hearing fee.
Legal Topics
Building Contracts, Defective Work, Quantum Meruit, Compensation for Additional Work
Contract Law Building Contracts Defective Work Quantum Meruit Compensation for Additional Work

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

V. R. Subramanyam

Appellant

B. Thayappa and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals / Appeal by Special Leave Under Article 136 of the Constitution From Mysore High Court Judgment and Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent is entitled to compensation for additional work not covered by the written contract.
  2. 2 Whether compensation may be awarded under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act where oral agreement is not proved.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent is entitled to compensation for additional work not covered by the written contract as the work was not done gratuitously; even failure to prove an oral agreement does not bar compensation under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs. One hearing fee.

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.
  • Cost awarded to the respondent.