Disposed

Joseph Velupuzhakkal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Feb 2017WP(C)/1078/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a contractor, sought direction to adjust dues against financial stipulations. The court directed respondents to adjust the amount against stipulations and execute the agreement within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to adjust the amount of dues against financial stipulations and execute the agreement within two weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment.

Joseph Velupuzhakkal Vs State of Kerala — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/12TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 1078 of 2017 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JOSEPH VELUPUZHAKKAL, S/O.MATHEW VELUPUZHAKKAL HOUSE, CHUNGAKKUNNU P.O, KELAKAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BUILDINGS, NORTH CIRCLE, PWD COMPLEX, KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶12

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROADS & BRIDGES DIVISION, KANNUR -670 002.

¶13

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 1078 of 2017 (H)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.DC4/1460/2016 DATED 20.12.2016

¶19

P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A1-WF/2016-17 DATED 31.12.2016

¶20

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.12.2016

¶21

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.6046 OF 2016 DATED 17.02.2016

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶27

W.P.(C)No. 1078 of 2017

¶28

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2017

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioner is an “A” class contractor and is working with second and third respondents pursuant to a tender invited to construction of improvements to Muringondi Melmuringondi Muzhakkunnu Road. The tender put forth by the petitioner was accepted, which is evident from Ext.P1 work order. In Ext.P1 work order, certain financial stipulations are incorporated, which is to be complied with by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P2, substantial amounts are due to the petitioner from the respondents. Therefore, if the said amount is adjusted towards the financial stipulations contained under Ext.P1, will help the petitioner from further providing funds as per Ext.P1. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

¶31

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, there will be a direction to the competent among the respondents to adjust the amount contained under Ext.P2 against the financial stipulations in

¶32

W.P.(C)No. 1078 of 2017

¶33

¶34

Ext.P1 and execute the agreement, within two weeks from the

¶35

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶39

dlk/1/2/

Joseph Velupuzhakkal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Velupuzhakkal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

St.Mary'S Jacobite Syrian Church Vs Mohammed Y. Safirulla

Jiju Thomas Vs Salim

Sreekumar M Vs Sri. B.Srinivas IAS

Joseph John Vs the Managing Director

Sulaiman Kunju Vs the District Collector

Suresh Mathew Vs State of Kerala