Disposed

A.L.Jacob v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Kerala HC9 Jun 2017WP(C)/1881/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a contractor seeking recovery of work dues. The Court noted that the respondent had disbursed the admitted dues during the pendency of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for realisation of disputed amounts.

A.L.Jacob Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/19TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 1881 of 2017 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

A.L.JACOB & SONS, ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, A.L.JACOB ROAD, COCHIN - 682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTER SRI.GEORGE JACOB.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DIVISION, KAVARATTI, LAKSHADWEEP - 682 555, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.MANU.S, CGC

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.V.

¶14

WP(C).No. 1881 of 2017 (I)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

P1 TRUE COPY OF WORK ORDER DATED 27.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶18

P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 04.7.2012 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶19

P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 31.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶20

P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22.1.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

P6 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 11.2.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 05.5.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF POST, SHIPPING AND AVIATION DIVISION OF THE RESPONDENT.

¶24

P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 06.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.3.2015 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶25

P10 TRUE COPY OF INSPECTION REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 30.10.2015.

¶26

P11 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 3.11.2016.

¶27

P12 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 25.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶28

P13 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 02.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶29

P14 TRUE COPY OF PROFORMA FOR PFMS DATED 02.12.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶34

W.P.(C) No.1881 of 2017

¶35

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2017

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioner is a contractor. They have undertaken a work of the respondent. The case of the petitioner is that though the work entrusted to the petitioner has been completed to the satisfaction of the respondent, the amounts due to them in respect of the work are not being disbursed.

¶38

Today, when this matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has disbursed the admitted dues during the pendency of the writ petition and therefore the writ

¶39

W.P.(C) No.1881 of 2017

¶40

-2-

¶41

petition can be disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for realisation of the disputed amounts.

¶42

In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against the respondent for realisation of the disputed amounts due to the petitioner.

¶43

Sd/- P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶44

bpr

A.L.Jacob v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.L.Jacob v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep

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

Radhamani Amma Vs the District Collector, Kollam

M.B.Moidu Haji Vs the District Collector

M/S. Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala Water Authority

Chandran Vs Suma

Anju S Vs Federal Bank

M.a.Jose Vs the District Collector