Dismissed

Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. and 3 Others v. Shaji Mathew and Others

Kerala HC1 Feb 2011RP/1127/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a review petition challenging an order directing payment of admitted dues against a petitioner. The Court held that a committee report found satisfactory work completion, binding the company, and no apparent error existed. Dues were to be disbursed within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was rejected. The petitioner is directed to quantify and disburse dues to the respondent within three weeks.

Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. and 3 Others Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932

¶5

RP.No. 1127 of 2010(Y)

¶6

-------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20393/2010

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/RESPONDETNS:

¶8

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

¶9

1. HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., A GOVT.OF INDIA ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEWSPRINT NAGAR-686 616, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. GENERAL MANAGER (WORKS), HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR-686 616, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3. COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE MANAGEMENT OF 1ST RESPONDENT FOR ANALYSING THE ISSUES CONNECTED WITH THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS TO THE PETITIONER AND RELATED EVENTS, REPRESENTED BY SRI.G.SREEDHARA WARRIER, HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR-686 616.

¶12

4. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (FDPL) HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR-686 616.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 IN WPC:

¶15

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

¶16

1. SHAJI MATHEW, ASSARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM POST, ERNAKULAM-686 664.

¶17

2. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HNL UNIT, VELLOOR, NEWSPRINT NAGAR-686 616.

¶18

3. OOMMEN OOMMEN, S/O.LATE T.M.OOMMEN, AGED 57 YEARS, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (FORESTRY) HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR-686 616.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sts

¶22

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶23

R.P No.1127 of 2010 in W.P (C) No. 20393 of 2010 -------------------------Dated this the 1st February, 2011

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

In I.A No.13913/2010, this Court passed an order on 3^rd November 2010 directing that Ext.P19 report will be treated as a certificate in terms of Article 10 of Ext.P15 agreement between the parties and the admitted amount due will be disbursed.

¶26

In this review petition, it is mainly contended that going by Ext.P19 only the dues to the Government can be recovered and that any amount due to the company, which is yet to be quantified, cannot be recovered from the amount to be disbursed to the writ petitioner. It is stated that only if the petitioner produces a certificate as required under Article 10 of the agreement then only the dues will be known and thereupon only the company can effect its recovery. Therefore, the counsel contends that this Court ought not have directed that instead of the certificate as specified under Article 10 of Ext.P15 the

¶27

R.P No.1127 of 2010 in W.P (C) No. 20393 of 2010

¶28

¶29

company should have acted upon Ext.P19 and disbursed the amounts due.

¶30

The possibility of any amount being due to the company, can be thought of provided the company had any complaint regarding the satisfactory nature of the completion of work by the petitioner. It is seen from Ext.P19 report submitted by a committee constituted by the Company itself, that the committee has positively found that the petitioner has satisfactorily completed the work in question within the extended contract period. This finding binds the Company. It is in view of the categorical finding of the Committee and also its recommendation that the company may consider whether the payment against running bills in respect of the works completed by the petitioner can be made to him that the order was passed by this Court.

¶31

Having regard to the above, I do not see any reason to think that the order dated 3.11.2010 is vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the review petition has to be rejected.

¶32

R.P No.1127 of 2010 in W.P (C) No. 20393 of 2010

¶33

¶34

However, it is clarified that in the event it is found that any amount is due from the petitioner for the work in question, this order will not prevent the company from recovering the same in accordance with law.

¶35

The dues to the petitioner shall be quantified and disbursed, at any rate within three weeks of production of a copy of this order.

¶36

Revision petition is disposed of as above.

¶37

Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶38

¶39

/True copy/

¶40

P.A to Judge

Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. and 3 Others v. Shaji Mathew and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. and 3 Others v. Shaji Mathew and Others

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

Prasanna Kumar K.P. Vs K.Premarajan

Chandra Mohanan Pillai Vs R.Syamnath

C.Harikumar Vs v.K.Baby

Priya K.B. Vs P.Jayakumar

Ninan Varghese Vs Divisional Forest Officer

C.K.Radhadevi Vs State of Kerala and Others