Allowed

D.Manoharan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Feb 2018WP(C)/1199/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a registered contractor, sought payment of outstanding dues. The court held that per the agreement and correspondence, the Director (R4) must release funds to the Corporation (R2) via bank draft, enabling R2 to pay the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The 4th Respondent (Director) to make available the amount due to the 2nd Respondent (Corporation) within one month, enabling the 2nd Respondent to release the money to the Petitioner.

D.Manoharan Vs State of Kerala — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 12TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 1199 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

D.MANOHARAN S/O.DAMODARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT ATTUKAL BHAVANAM, SHASTRI NAGAR, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN SRI.A.MOHAMMED FAIZAL SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OLD PWD STORE COMPOUND, PMG JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶12

3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED OLD PWD STORE COMPOUND, PMG JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶13

4. THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶14

R2 & R3 BY SRI.M.V.THAMBAN, SC., KSCC LTD. R1 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JESTIN MATHEW

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 1199 of 2018 (Y)

¶17

APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SAID AGREEMENT. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 18.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 20.10.2017. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.11.2017 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16.12.2017 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶19

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL ------------------//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶20

dlk

¶21

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶22

W.P.(C)No.1199 of 2018

¶23

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2018

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Petitioner is a registered contractor under various Government departments. He was awarded with item of

¶26

work by the second respondent and Ext.P1 agreement is

¶27

executed by and between the parties. The third respondent, the

¶28

Managing Director of the second respondent Corporation addressed the 4^th respondent to release the payment to the Corporation, evident from Ext.P4, however, no action is initiated. According to the petitioner, the work was completed in terms of

¶29

the agreement and there is no dispute with respect to the outstanding amount due to the petitioner, and therefore, the respondents are duty bound to release the amount to the

¶30

petitioner, in accordance with Ext.P4.

¶31

W.P.(C)No.1199 of 2018

¶32

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶34

learned Government Pleader, learned standing counsel for the

¶35

respondent Corporation and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

¶37

contentions raised in the writ petition.

¶38

Learned standing counsel for the Corporation has

¶39

invited my attention to Clause 8 of Ext.P1, which is dealing with

¶40

terms of payment, wherein it is stipulated that, in order to make

¶41

the payment to the petitioner, release of the part bill as well as

¶42

final bill from the 4^th respondent is necessitated. I find force in

¶43

the said contention.

¶44

Accordingly, after hearing respective counsel and

¶45

evaluating the situation, there will be a direction to the 4^th

¶46

respondent to make available the amounts due as per Ext.P4 to

¶47

W.P.(C)No.1199 of 2018

¶48

¶49

the second respondent within a month from the date of receipt

¶50

of a copy of this judgment and the second respondent shall take

¶51

necessary steps, at the earliest possible time to release the

¶52

money to the petitioner.

¶53

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶56

dlk/1/2/

D.Manoharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Manoharan 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

K.P.Indrabalan Vs Ayyappan Asoakan

Ammini Kurian Vs Smt. R.Girija

R. Solomon Thomas Vs State of Kerala

T.A.K Thommen Vs the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk

K. Sasikumar Vs the State of Kerala

T. Radhakrishna Pillai Vs District Collector, Kollam