Allowed

Government of Kerala and Others v. Thomas P.Maliakal

Kerala HC22 Oct 2010WA/583/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a writ appeal filed by the State. It held that directing the State to pay an uncertain sum under Article 226 is inappropriate as High Courts should not adjudicate contractual disputes or claim decrees. The appeal was allowed to compel the respondent to claim redressal in an appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was allowed. The respondent is directed to approach an appropriate forum for redressal of grievances regarding the contract claim.

Government of Kerala and Others Vs Thomas… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932

¶4

WA.No. 583 of 2010 -------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36276/2008 Dated 14/10/2009

¶5

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE WPC:

¶6

¶7

GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ROADS AND BRIDGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS AND BRIDGES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.BENNY GERVASIS.

¶11

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE WPC:

¶12

¶13

THOMAS P.MALIAKKAL, MALIAKAL GROUP OF INDUSTRIES, MALIAKAL HOUSE, PULIKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶17

¶18

W.A.No. 583 OF 2010

¶19

- - - - Dated this the 22^nd day of October, 2010

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

J.Chelameswar, C.J.

¶22

This is an appeal preferred by the State aggrieved by judgment dated 4.10.2009 in W.P.(C) No.36276 of 2008.

¶23

The writ petition is filed with prayers as follows:

¶24

“i. issue a writ of mandamus for any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to give the bill amount on the basis Exhibit.P1 to the petitioner immediately with interest at the rate of 18% for annum for delayed payment;

¶25

ii. declare that petitioner is entitled to get the rate approved in Exhibit.P1 till 01.04.2008.”

¶26

By the judgment under appeal the learned Judge

¶27

directed the appellant herein as follows:

¶28

“8. Keeping in mind the abovementioned principle, the amounts that is due to the petitioner will be computed by the third respondent and the amounts shall be finalised by means of a written order passed, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner may submit his claim in accordance with the principles mentioned here, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Amounts due to the

¶29

WA No. 583 of 2010

¶30

-:2:-

¶31

petitioner would be disbursed within the above mentioned time frame of three months. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to any interest.”

¶32

The claim of the respondent/writ petitioner arises out of a contract. It is well settled that this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, will not normally adjudicate upon the contractual rights of the parties nor will examine the claims which eventually may culminate a decree for payment of money.

¶33

By the judgment under appeal, in our opinion, a decree for payment of an uncertain amount is made. We are of the opinion that the exercise of discretion in favour of the respondent is not called for. Therefore, we allow the Writ Appeal, leaving it open to the respondent to approach an appropriate forum for the redressal of his grievance, if he so advised.

¶34

In view of the fact that the writ petition and appeal were pending in this Court for some time and that the learned Single Judge thought it fit to consider the writ petition and allow the same, we deem it appropriate to declare that the period

¶35

WA No. 583 of 2010

¶36

-:3:-

¶37

of the pendency of the proceedings in this Court shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation, if any, as and when the respondent approaches the competent forum with the redressal of his grievance.

¶38

J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice.

¶39

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge.

¶40

ttb

Government of Kerala and Others v. Thomas P.Maliakal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Government of Kerala and Others v. Thomas P.Maliakal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Venugopal Vs Dr.Raju Narayana Swamy I.A.S.

Theyyottuchira Nishath Vs the Returning Officer and Others

Zion Industries Vs Union of India

Qualified Private Medical Practitioners Vs State of Kerala and Others

The Director General of Employment and Vs Nitin a. and Others

Gospel for Asia and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others