Sri Poorna Chandra Rao v. Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Kerala HC7 Nov 2016WP(C)/30645/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning non-payment for supplied chillies, the court directed the respondents to pay the admitted outstanding amount within one month and directed the Managing Director to decide other pending claims within two months after a hearing. The writ petition was finally disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to pay the admitted outstanding amount within one month. Directed the Managing Director to decide other claims within two months after a hearing.

Sri Poorna Chandra Rao Vs Kerala State Civil… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/16TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 30645 of 2016 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

S. POORNACHANDRA RAO,

¶8

SOLE PROPRIETOR OF 'SRI POORNA CHANDRA AND CO', BUILDING NO 63/1736(OLD NO.38/1060-A) 2ND FLOOR, NEAR CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 020, THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, B. KOTHANDARAMAN,

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALIDHARAN (AROOR)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., MAVELI BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN-682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER(PURCHASE),

¶12

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., MAVELI BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN, PIN-682 020

¶13

BY ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB, S.C

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

WP(C).No. 30645 of 2016 (E)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT DATED NIL.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER PLACED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08/04/2016.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK GUARANTEE FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15/04/2016.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE DEPOT MANAGER, KODUVALLY, TO THE MANAGER-QUALITY ASSURANCE DATED 24/05/2016.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED ON SUPPLY OF 30 BAGS OF CHILLIES AS REPLACEMENT, DATED 20/08/2016.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ABSTRACT STATEMENT FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR FOUR PENDING BILLS.

¶25

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE INVOICE NO. 30 DATED 12/05/2016 AND THE GOODS RECEIPT SHEET ISSUED BY THE DEPOT MANAGER.

¶26

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 20/07/2016.

¶27

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPIES OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR THE RECEIPT OF NOTICES BY THE RESPONDENTS.

¶28

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION RECEIVED FROM THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER DATED 16/08/2016.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶35

W.P.(C). No.30645 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Non-payment of amount payable for the supply of chillies as per the agreement and purchase order constrained the petitioner to approach this court by filing this writ petition. According to the petitioner, as per the agreement, the supply was made, however, partial payment is detained by the 1^st respondent stating that, supply of chillies is not in accordance with the agreement entered into by and between the parties. Petitioner has also produced Ext.P4 which shows that even though initially certain objections were raised, proper action was taken by the petitioner replacing the product, in which the objections were raised. According to the petitioner, amounts are due to the petitioner even now in spite of the entire materials as per the purchase order is supplied to the respondents. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction this writ petition is filed.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned

¶39

W.P.(C). No.30645 of 2016

¶40

¶41

Standing Counsel appearing for respondents and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner.

¶42

Learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition and relied on the documents produced to establish that respondents are bound to pay the entire amount to the petitioner as per the contract entered by and between the parties.

¶43

However, learned Standing Counsel for respondents submitted that petitioner has not supplied the products as per the agreement entered into by and between the parties and proceedings are on the way. Any how petitioner has raised claims against the outstanding amounts and Ext.P7 lawyer notice dated 20.7.2016 was also issued. Even though, it was received by the respondents on 30.7.2016, no reply to the representation as well as notice issued by the petitioner is issued by the respondents.

¶44

In that view of the matter, I think it is only appropriate that, a direction is issued to the respondents to pay the

¶45

W.P.(C). No.30645 of 2016

¶46

¶47

admitted outstanding amount to the petitioner within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall also make a representation to the 2^nd respondent seeking to release the amount and all other claims in respect of the agreement entered into by and between the parties. If and when such a representation is filed by the petitioner, 2^nd respondent shall take a decision in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his representative, within two months thereafter. Needless to say, if money is found due, the same shall be paid to the petitioner without any further delay.

¶48

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

SHAJI P. CHALY

¶51

smv 07.11.2016

Sri Poorna Chandra Rao v. Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Poorna Chandra Rao v. Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation 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

Vincent E. Vs Ravikrishnan N.R

G.Haridasa Sarma Vs Additional Tahsildar

Shereef Bappu Vs the State of Kerala

K.K.Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnana Pillai Vs the District Police Chief

Francis Cleetus Vs District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram