Disposed

Chandragiri Construction Company v. T.K. Jose

Kerala HC4 Nov 2016Con.Case(C)/1407/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held in contempt proceedings arising from a prior judgment directing payment to a contractor. The court directed the respondent to submit details of the accounts statement including loss suffered by the State within two weeks. Relief granted only after quantification of loss.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to submit accounts statement and loss details to petitioner within two weeks. Payment to be made after quantification of loss.

Chandragiri Construction Company Vs T.K. Jose — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/13TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 1407 of 2016 (S) ------------------------------WPC NO 8008/2015,DATED 02/03/2016 --------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. M/S/CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 3/402-A, BACKER CHAMBER, V KARAT ROAD, WEST NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE-673 011, A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP REPRESENTED BY ITS WORKING PARTNER, K.M.MOIDEEN KUNHI, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNHI MAHIN, PADHOOR HOUSE, THEKKIL PO, KASARAGOD, PIN-671 541.

¶8

2. K.M.MOIDEEN KUNHI, S/O.LATE KUNHI MAHIN, AGED 43 YEARS, PADHOOR HOUSE, THEKKIL PO, KASARAGODE, PIN-671 541, PARTNER, M/S.CHANDRAGIRI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, THEKKIL PO, KASARAGOD, PIN-671 541.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.ADARSH KUMAR SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) SRI.BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM SRI.DILEEP CHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN WPC.:

¶11

1. T.K. JOSE, AGE NOT KNOWN, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. A.T.JAMES, AGE NOT KNOWN, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE COMMISSIONER, KERALA STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶13

-2-

¶14

-2-

¶15

COC NO 1407 OF 2016:

¶16

3. BALAKRISHNAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA STATE RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, (KSRRDA) TC/28/885, 3RD FLOOR, CST BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

4. MR.RAJAN AGE NOT KNOWN, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, POVERTY ALLEVIATION UNIT, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA PO, WAYANAD-673 122.

¶18

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER S.GOPINANTHAN

¶19

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-11-2016, ALOING WITH COC NO.1410/2016 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

K.V.

¶21

COC NO 1407 OF 2016:

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶24

ANNEXURE: A1 ORGINIAL COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2/03/2016.

¶25

ANNEXURE: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3/2/2015.

¶26

ANNEXURE: B TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION DATED 12.01.2015.

¶27

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:

¶28

ANNEXURE R3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO 193/AB4/2016/KSRRDA.

¶29

K.V.

¶30

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶31

============================== C.O.C.Nos.1407 & 1410 of 2016

¶32

============================== Dated this, the 04^th day of November, 2016.

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

These Contempt Cases are arising from the judgment of

¶35

this Court. The issue is related to the payment to be effected

¶36

to the contractor. This Court directed to release the amount to the petitioner. As per the agreement, the contractor is entitled for the amount.

¶37

In the counter affidavit filed by the 3^rd respondent, it is stated that, the contractor failed to rectify the defects as per the agreement, he is not entitled to claim the amount.

¶38

This Court is of the view that the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the decision of the respondent. However, this Court is of the view that the respondent shall give the details of the accounts statement including loss suffered by the State, to the petitioner and give all the details within a period of 2 weeks. After quantification of the loss, if any amount will be payable to the petitioner, the same shall be released in accordance with the agreement.

¶39

C.O.C.Nos.1407 & 1410 of 2016 : 2 :

¶40

With the above direction and observation, the Contempt

¶41

of Court Cases are closed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,

JUDGE

Bb/05/11/2016

H/O

[True copy]

P.A to Judge

Chandragiri Construction Company v. T.K. Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandragiri Construction Company v. T.K. Jose

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

The Alwaye Ksheera Vyvasaya Co-Operative Society Vs B.T. Babu

Jerson Joseph Vs the Sub Regional Transport Officer(Taxation Officer)

Chorode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Authority Under the Kerala Payment

Sheriff Vs the District Collector

Shylaja S. Vs the K.P.S.C. Rep. by the Secretary

Balachandran Nair S.S Vs Indian Space Research Organisation