Disposed

Baby N.V. v. S.K.Ratheeshkumar

Kerala HC12 Jan 2009Con.Case(C)/1720/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a contempt case arising from a writ petition regarding unpaid working charges. The respondent admitted payment would be made upon execution of a supplementary agreement and directed the petitioner to sign the same on a specified date, with payment to follow within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to execute supplementary agreement on 27.1.2008; respondent to pay working charges within two weeks of execution.

Baby N.V. Vs S.K.Ratheeshkumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1720 of 2008(S)

¶6

------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19920/2008 Dated 15/07/2008

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

----------------------BABY.N.V., S/O.SIMON VARGHESE, AGED 56, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, PERICKAMATTATHIL HOUSE, EZHAKKARANADU SOUTH PO., ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

------------------------

¶12

S.K.RATHEESHKUMAR, AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H.DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM.

¶13

BY SRI. M. DINESH, SC

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

S.SIRI JAGAN, J

¶16

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case No. 1720 of 2008

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2009

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

When the writ petition in which Annexure A1 order was passed came up on 15.7.2008, the learned standing counsel for the water authority submitted that the petitioner can approach the 3^rd respondent to collect the admitted amount on the basis of which Annexure A1 order was passed. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that working charges which are not disputed have not been paid. In the counter affidavit filed in the contempt case, it has been stated that although working charges are disputed, it has been decided to make the payment for the working charge which was found inadmissible for payment while admitting the 1^st and part bill. What stands in the way of paying the same is that the petitioner has not executed the supplementary agreement as required under law. That being so, it is now admitted that if the petitioner executes the supplementary agreement the working charges also would be paid, without prejudice to the contentions of the water authority in the writ petition. Accordingly, the contempt case is disposed of with the following directions:

¶20

The petitioner shall appear before the respondent on

¶21

Cont. Case No. 1720 of 2008 - 2 -

¶22

27.1.2008, on which date, the respondent shall keep the supplementary agreement ready for signature. The petitioner shall execute the supplementary agreement on that date. Thereupon the respondent shall pay the working charges as stated in the paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit to the petitioner within two weeks therefrom.

¶23

The contempt case is disposed of as above.

¶24

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶25

rhs

Baby N.V. v. S.K.Ratheeshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby N.V. v. S.K.Ratheeshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.K.Rugmini Vs Shri.M.Subair

Sahira Basheer Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.and Other

Shobhana Vs the Managing Director

Dr.R.Prakasam Vs Institute of Management

M.N.Somasekharan Nair Vs the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode

Eldhose Pynadath Vs State of Kerala