Disposed

Sud Chemic India (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC2 Jun 2014WP(C)/13388/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that since a writ petition challenging the penal charges is pending with an interim stay, the petitioner is entitled to have their application for contract enhancement considered without insisting on payment of the disputed penalty amount.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's applications for enhancement of contract demand without insisting on payment of the disputed penal bill amount covered by the stay order.

Sud Chemic India (P) Ltd. Vs Kerala State… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2014/12TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 13388 of 2014 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SUD CHEMIE INDIA (P) LTD EDAYAR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, BINANIPURAM.P.O. KOCHI-683 502 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT SRI.GHANA SHYAM NAIR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.RONY JOSE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

CHIEF ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, DISTRIBUTION CENTRAL DH ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 016.

¶12

DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM PIN-683 542.

¶13

ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, EDAYAR ERNAKULAM, PIN-686 662.

¶14

BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 13388 of 2014 (W)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1- TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 16.3.2001 EXECUTED WITH KSEB.

¶20

P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23.1.08 IN W.P[C]NO.25745/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶21

P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 27.09.2011 IN I.A.14228/2011 IN W.P[C] 25745/2007.

¶22

P4- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY PETITIONER DATED 29.10.2013 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶23

P5- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

P6- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 09.05.2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

dlk

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.

WP(C).NO. 13388 of 2014

¶32

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2014

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Ext.P4 request was submitted by the petitioner before the

¶35

4^th respondent seeking enhancement of contract demand from 700 Kva to 1000 KVA . The application was submitted supported by necessary certificates and other documents. But the 3^rd respondent had issued Ext.P6 reply declining the request on the basis that payment of penal charges is in arrears as well as WP (C).No.25745/07 filed by the petitioner challenging the said demand is pending disposal.

¶36

It is noticed that the penal bill referred to in Ext. P6 was challenged by the petitioner before this court in WP(C). 25745/2007. The demand stands stayed by virtue of interim order issued by this court, which was extended until further orders, as per Ext.P2. It is also evident that, in Ext.P3 interim order this court had issued direction to the respondent to consider an application submitted by the petitioner seeking regularisation of the unauthorised additional load.

¶37

WP(C). 13388/2014

¶38

¶39

Counsel on both sides agree that the said writ petition is pending disposal before this court and that the interim order is still in force. When this court had stayed collection and recovery of the penal amount demanded, it cannot be said that the petitioner had defaulted payment of any amounts or that they are in arrears of payment of the amount demanded. Therefore the denial of consideration of the request for enhancement of contract demand, for the reasons that the penal amount is in arrears, cannot be sustained. The petitioner is entitled to get the request for enhancement of the contract demand considered, without insistence for payment of the amount of penalty, which is disputed and payment of which is stayed by this court.

¶40

Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ petition is disposed of by directing competent among the respondents to consider Exts. P4 and P5 applications submitted by the petitioner and to take appropriate decision thereon without insisting upon payment of the amount covered by the penal bill issued on 18.4.2005.

¶41

WP(C). 13388/2014

¶42

¶43

The application shall be disposed of at the earliest

¶44

possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, provided the petitioner complies with all other requisite formalities.

¶45

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶46

pmn/

¶47

WP(C). 13388/2014 4

Sud Chemic India (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sud Chemic India (P) Ltd. v. Kerala State Electricity Board

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

Secretary, Kseb, Vydhudhi Bhavan, Pattom Vs Girija Menon

Director, Balanagar Technical Vs Kseb

Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs K.S.E.B

Joby.K.George Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

K.R.Gidesh Vs K.S.E.B.

M/S.Wave Online Infoway (Private) Limited Vs Kerala State Elecrticity Board