Allowed

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

Kerala HC3 Jul 2017WP(C)/7638/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed writ petitions filed by contractors against the Kerala Water Authority for delayed payments. The court held that the funding clause in the agreement could not justify indefinite delay and directed payment of admitted dues.

What did the court decide?

Payment of admitted amounts due to petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment.

M/S.Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt.Ltd… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2017/12TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 7638 of 2017 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S.REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PVT.LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE, 602, SHIV TOWERS, PATTO-PLAZA, PANAJI, GOA - 403 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.C.JAMES.

¶8

BY ADVS. B.ASHOK SHENOY K.V.GEORGE P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR P.S.GIREESH RIYAL DEVASSY POOJA DILIP

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶12

2. THE FINANCE MANAGER AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, HEAD OFFICE, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶13

3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.CIRCLE, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE - 673 09.

¶14

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PROJECT DIVISION, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶15

R5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF DRINKING WATER & SANITATION, C WING, 4TH FLOOR, PANDIT DEENDAYAL ANTYODAYA BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.

¶16

**(ADDITIONAL R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11/04/2017 IN IA NO.6317/17)*

¶17

R1-R4 BY ADV. P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 7837/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rvs.

¶20

WP(C).No. 7638 of 2017 (D)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF WORK ORDER NO.SE/PHC/KKD/D4-1483/2012 DATED 20.02.2014 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2.	TRUE COPY OF BILL IN	FORM CB3 VOUCHER DATED NIL,
	SANCTIONED ON 04.05.2015	IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER BY 4TH
	RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3.	TRUE COPY OF BILL IN	FORM CB3 VOUCHER, DATED NIL,
	SANCTIONED ON 12.02.2016,	IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER BY 4TH
	RESPONDENT ALONGWITH ITS	READABLE COPY.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23.06.2016 IN WP(C) NO.18152 OF 2016 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

rvs.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶33

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C).Nos.7638, 7834, 7837

¶34

& 15470 of 2017

¶35

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

¶36

Dated this the 3^rd day of July, 2017

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Petitioners in these writ petitions are

¶39

contractors who have undertaken works of the Kerala Water Authority. The works entrusted to the petitioners in W.P.(C).Nos.7638, 7834 and 7837 of 2017 are yet to be over. The grievance of the petitioners in the said cases concerns the inaction on the part of the Water Authority in effecting payments due in respect of the running bills of

¶40

the works entrusted to them. As far as W.P.(C). No.15470/2017 is concerned, the grievance of the petitioners is on the inaction on the part of the Water Authority in effecting the final payment of the work which

¶41

W.P.(C).Nos.7638, 7834, 7837, 15470/2017

¶42

: 2 :

¶43

has been executed by them.

¶44

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Water Authority in W.P.(C).No.7837/2017 and the same has been adopted in the remaining cases. The stand taken by the Water Authority in the counter affidavit is that the agreements entered into by them with the petitioners contain a clause to the effect that the payments of the running bills and the final bill of the works will be effected only subject to the availability of funds and that therefore, the petitioners cannot claim the amounts due as and when the work is completed.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶46

the learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority as also the learned Central Government Counsel for the additional fifth respondent in W.P.(C).Nos.7834 and 7837 of 2017.

¶47

The clause in the agreement which is relied on by the Water Authority in the counter affidavit reads thus:

¶48

“The tenderer/contractor must clearly understand the

¶49

W.P.(C).Nos.7638, 7834, 7837, 15470/2017

¶50

: 3 :

¶51

settlement of claim either by part bill will be made only according to the availability of the budget provisions and allotment of funds made with the Divisional Officer in charge of the work under the respective head of account in which the work is sanctioned and arranged and also subject to the seniority of such bills.”

¶52

The fact that the petitioners have executed the work/portions of the works entrusted to them satisfactorily is not in dispute. Having extracted the work from the petitioners, a public authority like the Water Authority cannot be heard to contend that they will effect payment as and when they get money. The clause in the agreement referred to above, according to me, cannot be relied on to delay the payments indefinitely or beyond a reasonable limit. In this context, it is relevant to point out that the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.15470 of 2017 is that the work entrusted to them has though been completed during 2012, the payments have not been effected even after almost five years.

¶53

The writ petitions, in the circumstances, are allowed and the respondents are directed to effect payments

¶54

W.P.(C).Nos.7638, 7834, 7837, 15470/2017

¶55

: 4 :

¶56

of the admitted amounts due to the petitioners, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶57

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶58

rsr

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt.Ltd 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Rafi Syed Vs T.S.Jayasree

Sethu Anna Varghese Vs Additional Tahsildar

M/S Hilite Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sujith P.V.

Justin Shinto Vs the District Police Chief, Ernakulam

K.C.Anilkumar Vs the Village Officer

Raju.D Vs Union of India