Dismissed

M/S.Leena Powertech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. M/.Shahul Hameed

Kerala HC4 Feb 2014Con.Case(C)/123/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt application alleging disobedience of an order staying proceedings. The High Court found no grounds to entertain the petition as the underlying dispute was resolved by acceptance of the tender and renewal of the bank guarantee due to a communication gap.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt of Court Case is closed as there are no grounds to entertain it.

M/S.Leena Powertech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/.Shahul… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/15TH MAGHA, 1935

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 123 of 2014 (S)

¶6

[AGAINST THE INACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER DTD. 27/01/2014 IN W.P.(C).NO.2646/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT]

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

M/S.LEENA POWERTECH ENGINEERS PRIVATE LTD., 13-15, GROUND FLOOR, SAI CHAMBERS, SECTOR 11, CBD, BELAPUR, NAVI MUMBAI – 500 614, REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD-BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT - MR. SAURABH KAUNDINYA, S/O. SUDHANSHU PANDEY, AGED 27 YEARS.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS,

¶10

SRI.PAUL JACOB.

¶11

CONTEMNORS/ RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:

¶12

1. M/.SHAHUL HAMEED, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, NOW WORKING AS SECRETARY, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶13

2. A.S. DASSAPPAN, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, CHIEF ENGINEER (DISTRIBUTION SOUTH), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, POWER HOUSE BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

BY SRI.T.R.RAJAN,S.C,

¶15

SRI.JAICE JACOB,S.C.

¶16

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Prv.

¶18

CONT. CASE (C).NO.123/2014-S:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27/01/2014 IN W.P.(C).NO.2646/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 30/01/2014 ISSUED BY THE R.2.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶27

Cont. of Court (C).No.123 of 2014

¶28

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2014

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This Contempt of Court Case is filed alleging that the respondents herein have willfully disobeyed Annexure A1 interim order passed by this Court on 27.1.2014 in W.P.(C)No.2646 of 2014. It is stated that this Court had by the said interim order stayed further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 letter dated 23.1.2014 and Ext.P11 letter dated 25.1.2014 sent by the second respondent herein to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was called upon to extend the validity of the bank guarantee furnished by him as also the validity of the tender documents for a further period of three months from 7.2.2014 and was cautioned that in the event of failure the amount covered by the bank guarantee would be forfeited. It is stated that notwithstanding the fact that an order of stay was passed on 27.1.2014 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board had taken notice for the respondents, the second respondent had sent Annexure A2 letter dated 30.1.2014 to the Manager, State

¶31

C.O.(C)No.123/2014

¶32

-:2:-

¶33

Bank of India, Trade Finance Centralised Processing Centre, Mafatlal Chambers, 1^st Floor CD Wing, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, invoking the bank guarantee and calling upon the bank to send a demand draft for the amount covered by the bank guarantee in his favour.

¶34

When the Contempt of Court Case came up for hearing today, Sri.T.R.Rajan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Electricity Board, submitted that it was on account of a communication gap that Annexure A2 letter happened to be issued and that on coming to know of the stay order the second respondent had sent a letter dated 1.2.2014 to the Manager, State Bank of India, Trade Finance Centralised Processing Centre, Mafatlal Chambers, 1^st Floor CD Wing, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, requesting him to keep in abeyance the request in Annexure A2 letter dated 30.1.2014 for invocation of the bank guarantee. A copy of the said letter was made available to me for perusal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bank guarantee was thereafter renewed for a further period till 5.3.2014 and that it has not been invoked. Learned counsel on

¶35

C.O.(C)No.123/2014

¶36

-:3:-

¶37

both sides also submitted that a letter of acceptance has also been issued accepting the bid submitted by the petitioner. In such circumstances I find no grounds to entertain this Contempt of Court Case. It is accordingly closed.

¶38

P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.

¶39

ahg.

¶40

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------C.O.(C).No.123 of 2014

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

4^th February, 2014

M/S.Leena Powertech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. M/.Shahul Hameed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Leena Powertech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. M/.Shahul Hameed

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

Jose Vs the Sub Registrar

Dr.Arun Preeth v. Vs State of Kerala

Devassia P.D. Vs State of Kerala

Sikha.P. Vs Tahsildar

M/S. Leena Powertech Engineers Private Ltd. Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Shereefu Thottiyil Muhammed Kunhi Vs Commissioner of Customs