Disposed

A.R.George v. the Secretary

Kerala HC29 Jan 2015WP(C)/18301/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

writ petition filed by a small contractor alleging illegal withholding of final bill amount. Court directed respondents to specify remaining work within a week. Petitioner granted two weeks to complete work. Payment of final bill ordered only after satisfactory completion of remaining works.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent to specify remaining works in writing within one week; Petitioner to complete work within two weeks thereafter. Final bill payable upon satisfactory completion.

A.R.George Vs the Secretary — 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 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/9TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 18301 of 2013 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

A.R.GEORGE, AGED 31, S/O.OUSEPH RAPHAEL, AMBALAKKATTU HOUSE, THRIKKARIYUR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 691.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.DAYAL

¶10

SRI.SIBI KARUN SRI.S.MOHAMMED FEBIN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE SECRETARY, KEERAMBARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KEERAMBARA P.O., PUNNEKAD, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 691.

¶14

2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD SECTIONO, KEERAMBARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KEERAMBARA P.O., PUNNEKAD, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 691.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.M.B.SANDEEP

¶16

SMT.R.PRIYA SRI.V.VISAL AJAYAN SMT.B.DHANYA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

WP(C).No. 18301 of 2013 (K)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS DATED 22.7.2010.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FINAL BILL DATED 21.2.2012.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 26.3.2013.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P4(A): TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARDS SHOWING THE ACCEPTANCE OF DEMAND NOTICES BY THE RESPONDENTS.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P4(B): TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARDS SHOWING THE ACCEPTANCE OF DEMAND NOTICES BY THE RESPONDENTS.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 18301 of 2013

¶34

-------------------------------------------------Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2015

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Alleging illegal withholding of payment due to the petitioner by the respondents, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶37

The petitioner is a small licensed contractor. He

¶38

entered into Ext.P1 contract with the respondents to complete the construction of a building for the purpose of accommodating Anganvady. As per the agreement, the work was started on 29.07.2010 and completed on 14.12.2011. The petitioner alleges that the final bill was was prepared as evidenced by Ext.P2 and a total amount to the tune of 2,94,839/- is due to the petitioner. The₹ petitioner further alleges that the work was completed to the satisfaction of the respondents. His case is that inspite of repeated demands, the respondents withheld an amount of 89,931/- from the amount due, without any valid reason.₹

¶39

It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶40

..2..

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 18301 of 2013

¶42

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent panchayath submitted that the respondent panchayath is ready to pay the entire amount due to the petitioner provided he completes the remaining work to the satisfaction of the respondents.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would complete the entire work to the satisfaction of the respondent panchayath.

¶44

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the

¶45

1^st respondent panchayath to inform the petitioner, in writing, the remaining works, which are to be completed, within a period of one week from today. In the event of the same, the petitioner shall complete the work within a period of two weeks thereafter. After completion of the work to the satisfaction of the respondents, the final bill shall be paid without further delay.

¶46

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶47

bka/-

A.R.George v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.R.George v. the Secretary

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

Sreejesh Kumar.C.C Vs P.Sadanandan

Retnamma Vs the Kanichikulangara Rural Housing Co-Operative Society

Shiju .S Vs the District Collector

N.M.Mohandasan Vs State of Kerala

Binu Raj P.M. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

P.Bharghavan Vs State of Kerala