Disposed

A.T. Rejimon v. Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

Kerala HC5 Feb 2015WP(C)/1038/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the enforcement of a bank guarantee, alleging heavy losses due to road conditions. The court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representation regarding adjustment of payments after affording him an opportunity of being heard. Recovery of remaining installments was to be enforced only after this exercise was completed within two months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to consider petitioner's representation regarding loss adjustment and pass appropriate orders after affording petitioner opportunity of hearing.

A.T. Rejimon Vs Roads and Bridges… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/16TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 1038 of 2012 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

A.T. REJIMON, AGED 44 YEARS, ARAMPILLIL HOUSE, KADACKANAD P.O., KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 311.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SRI.MATHEW P.PAUL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. 2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, M.V.ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶12

ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., 2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, M.V.ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.M.VIJAYA KUMAR, S.C

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

WP(C).No. 1038 of 2012 (D)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

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

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.02.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 16/09/2011.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DURING MAY, 2011 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO GRANT REDUCTION IN TOLL FREE.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 05/01/2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶30

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.1038 of 2012

¶31

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶32

Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2015

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Alleging that the respondents are proceeding to enforce the bank

¶35

guarantee against the petitioner without considering Ext.P4, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶36

The first respondent corporation invited competitive bids from various parties to collect user fee on contract basis from road over bridge at Nandi Bazar, Kozhikode. The petitioner participated in the tender process and he was the highest bidder. The bid was for ₹2,16,00,000/-. An agreement was executed by the petitioner with the respondents on 24.1.2011. As per the payment schedule, ₹9,18,000/- should be paid on every 15 days. The petitioner also produced a bank guarantee for ₹ 55,08,000/- executed by the Federal Bank, Kolenchery branch which is valid from 24.1.2011 to 24.1.2012 as security for the due fulfillment by

¶37

the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.

¶38

WP(C)1038/12

¶39

-:2:-

¶40

The petitioner alleges that due to the pathetic condition of the road, around 60% of the vehicle deviated the route and therefore, the petitioner sustained heavy loss. He further alleges that he submitted repeated representation to adjust the loss with future installments. Ext.P4 is the copy of one of such representation. Out of 24 installments, the petitioner has paid 20 installments. According to the petitioner, the balance can be paid only his claim in Ext.P4 is considered.

¶41

As the limited prayer of the petitioner is only for consideration of Ext.P4, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The recovery of remaining installments shall be enforced only after this exercise which shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶44

krj

A.T. Rejimon v. Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.T. Rejimon v. Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

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

P.K. Jaleel Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board

M.M.Luca Vs the District Collector

C.G.Joy Vs Secretary, Vadakkekara Grama Panchayath

M v Jose Vs Vengola Grama Panchayath

Nalini Vs Porkulam Grama Panchayath

Sivaprasath Vs Tahsildar