Partly allowed

State of Kerala v. M/S.Mary Matha Construcion Company

Kerala HC8 Apr 2016WA/812/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Appellate Court modified a single judge's interim order in a contract dispute regarding withheld dues of Rs. 6.95 Crores. It directed payment to the appellant subject to the respondent furnishing additional security via a bank guarantee or immovable property to the Executive Engineer.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Appellants to disburse withheld amount of Rs. 6,95,85,236/- subject to Respondent furnishing additional bank guarantee or immovable property security.

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Mary Matha… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/19TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

WA.No. 812 of 2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 9730/2016 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23-03-2016

¶7

APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS:

¶8

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶9

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶10

CHIEF ENGINEER (I&A), DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, ERNAKULAM P.O., KAKKANAD - 682 030.

¶12

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM

¶13

RESPONDENT: PETITIONER:

¶14

M/S.MARY MATHA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, MARY MATHA SQUARE, ARAKUZHA ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 661. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI.SABU CHERIAN.

¶15

BY SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.) BY SRI.P.SHANES METHAR

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.T.SANKARAN & K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.

¶18

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

¶19

W.A. No.812 of 2016

¶20

---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of April, 2016

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶23

The Writ Appeal is filed challenging the interim order dated 23.3.2016 by which the learned single Judge granted the interim order as prayed for. There was also a direction that any amount withheld and due to the writ petitioner shall be disbursed based on the priority already reckoned.

¶24

The Writ Petition was filed by the first respondent herein challenging clause 7 of Ext.P8 to the extent it directs withholding of amounts from the bills of the contractor (writ petitioner) and also the direction to obtain concurrence of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau.

¶25

The writ petitioner is the contractor for the work “NABARD-

¶26

W.A. No.812 of 2016

¶27

:: 2 ::

¶28

RIDF XVII- Construction of a Regulator-cum-Bridge at Pathalam across Periyar River in Ernakulam District”. According to the writ petitioner, he is entitled to get the balance amount under the contract. The bills were submitted. A sum of `6,95,85,236/- was withheld on the ground that MS liner was not used in the piling work. According to the writ petitioner, there was no such condition while awarding the contract and the agreement does not contain any such clause.

¶29

The learned single Judge admitted the Writ Petition. The interim order sought for in the Writ Petition was to stay the directions contained in clause 7 in Ext.P8 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. The learned single Judge passed the interim order as stated above.

¶30

Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent.

¶31

In the course of arguments, a suggestion arose as to whether the amount withheld can be disbursed to the writ petitioner on his furnishing sufficient security. Both sides got instructions from

¶32

W.A. No.812 of 2016

¶33

:: 3 ::

¶34

their respective parties. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ernakulam as a condition for disbursement of the amount withheld. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that it would be sufficient safeguard for disbursement of the amount withheld.

¶35

Accordingly, the order passed by the learned single Judge is modified as follows: There will be a direction to the appellants in the Writ Appeal (respondents in the Writ Petition) to disburse the withheld amount of `6,95,85,236/- to the respondent in the Writ Appeal (writ petitioner) on condition that the writ petitioner shall furnish sufficient security for the same to the satisfaction of the Executive Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Ernakulam, either in the form of bank guarantee or in the form of immovable property. It is made clear that the bank guarantee to be furnished should be over and above the bank guarantee already furnished by the writ petitioner for execution of the

¶36

W.A. No.812 of 2016

¶37

:: 4 ::

¶38

work. On furnishing sufficient security, the amount shall be released to the writ petitioner based on the priority already reckoned.

¶39

The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶40

K.T.SANKARAN Judge

¶41

K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH

¶42

Judge

¶43

ahz/

State of Kerala v. M/S.Mary Matha Construcion Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. M/S.Mary Matha Construcion Company

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

Abdul Kareem Vs the State of Kerala

M/S.Kanan Devan Hills Plantations Vs State of Kerala

Francis T.Chacko Vs the State of Kerala

District Consumers Vigilance Forum Vs Kerala State

Satheesh Vasath Vs Union of India

N.K.Sivaraman Vs P.K.Kesavan