Allowed

Lal Kumar N.K. v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC5 Dec 2017WP(C)/31939/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the release of a retention amount owed to a government contractor. The court directed the respondent to pay the dues within 45 days upon receipt of a simple bond to cover potential defects.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to release the retention amount of Rs.3,42,702/- by securing a simple bond from the petitioner within 45 days.

Lal Kumar N.K. Vs Kerala Water Authority — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 31939 of 2017 (N) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

LAL KUMAR N.K, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, RESIDING AT NALUPURAKKAL KUNIYIL HOUSE, ATHOLI P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS.SMT.TESSY JOSE SRI.JOHNY CHERIAN

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 010.

¶10

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY P.H.DIVISION, SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN: 673 592. BY ADV. SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC,

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

K.V.

¶13

WP(C).No. 31939 of 2017 (N)

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶16

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.40/2011-12 DATED 22/2/2012 WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶17

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CB 3 BILL DATED 13/2/2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 (TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/6/2017 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT) RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

¶18

/TRUE COPY/

¶19

K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE

¶20

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶21

W.P.(C) No.31939 of 2017 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2017

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Petitioner is an A class Government Contractor.

¶24

Petitioner's tender in regard to the work “Leak rectification work in RWSS to Kalpetta” was accepted by the 2^nd respondent. Petitioner entered into an agreement dated 22.2.2012 with the 2^nd respondent. The said work was completed in accordance with the stipulations contained under the agreement to the satisfaction of the 2^nd respondent, Kerala Water Authority. According to the petitioner, in spite of lapse of 5 years, 2^nd respondent is deliberately making delay in repayment of the retention amount, amounting to Rs.3,42,702/-. It is thus seeking appropriate direction for release of the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Water Authority and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶26

It is evident from Ext.P2 that, an amount of Rs.3,42,702/- is due to the petitioner towards the retention. It

¶27

W.P.(C) No.31939 of 2017

¶28

¶29

is not under much dispute that, the work was completed 5 years back and in accordance with the terms of the agreement.

¶30

That being the situation, a duty is cast upon the respondents to release the retention amount. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that, petitioner is even prepared to execute any bond in order to satisfy the requirement of the respondents. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to release the retention amount to the petitioner on securing a simple bond from the petitioner to satisfy the demand in case of any defect, as is pointed out by the Kerala Water Authority, at the earliest possible time and at any rate within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶32

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶33

smv 5.12.2017

Lal Kumar N.K. v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lal Kumar N.K. v. Kerala Water Authority

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

George Mathew Vs Smt. Tinku Biswal I.A.S

Saji Mathew Vs Sri. V.V. Venu IAS

Smitha Jaison Vs Anita Karwal

Technoline Engineering Vs Smt. a.Shainamol IAS

Sathyanaranyanan Vs State of Kerala

Siyad P.H Vs the Village Officer