Dismissed

C.v.Jayadas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2016WP(C)/6607/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning the forfeiture of a security deposit by respondents after the petitioner withdrew from the contract, the Court held that the respondents' actions were not arbitrary and were in terms of the contract, dismissing the writ petition while noting that the petitioner could approach the Civil Court for refund under limitation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is dismissed from his writ petition with the Court directing him to approach the Civil Court for refund if applicable.

C.v.Jayadas Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/14TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 6607 of 2005 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

C.M.JAYADAS, CONTRACTOR, CHEMPADIYIL HOUSE, KADAVANTHARA P.O., ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ KUNJACHAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

WP(C).No. 6607 of 2005 (J)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶20

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

¶21

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.22.9.2004 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.28.9.2004 SENT BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH(B) DIVISION, KODUNGALLOOR TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.W3 D1-D1-1199/2000 DTD.27.12.2004 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶30

------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.6607 of 2005

¶31

Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

This writ petition is filed in the year 2005 seeking a direction to release the security amount of 1,00,000/- deposited by the₹ petitioner.

¶34

It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent that, the work awarded to the petitioner has been terminated and thereafter, the Department re-arranged and completed the work. The Department appears to have sustained loss in that regard. As per Clause 13 of Form No.83, the contractor has to deposit 5% of the probable value of contract (subject to a maximum of 1,00,000/-) as security for the proper fulfillment of₹ work. It is also seen that, the petitioner unilaterally withdrawn from the contractual obligation. In view of the failure to perform the contract by the petitioner, the respondents have forfeited the security deposit.

¶35

In view of the above, this Court is of the view that, the respondents have acted in terms of the contract. Therefore, there is arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. Since there is no arbitrariness on the part of the respondents, there is no scope for invoking power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, if the petitioner has a case that, he is entitled for refund of

¶36

W.P.(C) No.6607 of 2005

¶37

¶38

the security deposit based on the contract, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for such relief, subject to the period of limitation.

¶39

With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

¶41

C.v.Jayadas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.v.Jayadas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K.Rajendran Vs Director,Kirtads

Official Receiver Vs Special Tahsildar

Suresh Kumar.G.K. Vs Rajamma

Shaji Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Binoy Vs Executive Engineer (Civil)

Sunitha Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram