Disposed

C.V. Varghese, v. the Executive Engineer

Kerala HC18 Nov 2019WA/2330/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ appeal in a matter concerning payment for annual maintenance work. The court held that while the court cannot adjudicate disputes over the quantity of work, the admitted amount is payable to the contractor within three weeks by cheque or demand draft.

What did the court decide?

The admitted amount of ₹1,55,118.40 is to be paid by cheque or demand draft within three weeks. Other claims to be approached before the Civil Court.

C.V. Varghese, Vs the Executive Engineer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

W.A.2330/2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶8

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶9

WA.No.2330 OF 2019

¶10

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7738/2019(N) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶11

APPELLANT/S:

¶12

C.V.VARGHESE, AGED 64 YEARS,

¶13

S/O.VARKEY, CHENNAKKATTU HOUSE, PERINGOL KARA, KOLENCHERY P.O , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 311.

¶14

BY ADV.P.P.RAJESH

¶15

RESPONDENT/S:

¶16

1 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶17

2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION, THOTTAKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA-683 108.

¶18

3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION SECTION, PATTIMATTOM, 683 562.

¶19

SR.GP SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.2330/2019

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of November 2019

¶25

A.M.Shaffique, J.

¶26

This appeal is filed against an order passed by the learned single Judge refusing to interfere with a claim made by the appellant for disbursing the amount due to him in terms of the work executed as per Exts.P2 agreement.

¶27

Appellant had undertaken the work of annual maintenance of Karukappilly Aikkaranad LIS under M.I Section, Pattimattom during the year 2017-18. Estimated cost of the work was ₹4,70,000/-. Appellant quoted 19.1% below the estimated rate and work was awarded to him in terms of Ext.P2 agreement for an amount of ₹3,74,886.20. Appellant had remitted ₹18,800/towards security deposit and ₹43,400/- towards performance guarantee. According to him he had satisfactorily completed the work before the date specified for completion, i.e., one day prior to the date of completion of the work as per the agreement.

¶28

Appellant submits that the respondent authorities after having noticed that the entire work had been completed, issued Ext.P4 completion certificate. The Government had disputed Ext.P4 completion certificate to the extent that according to them value of work done is only for ₹1,55,118.40. Perusal of Ext.P4 completion certificate would indicate that the work is

¶29

W.A.2330/2019

¶30

¶31

completed on all respects. However, bill prepared and accepted by the Department would indicate that the total value of the work executed was only for ₹1,55,118.40. Whereas, according to the appellant he had completed the entire work valuing ₹3,74,890/-. In so far as the payment had not been effected along with the security deposit and performance guarantee, the appellant herein filed writ petition. In the objection filed by the Government, it was inter alia contended that though the completion certificate had been issued, the total value of work done was only to the extent of ₹1,55,118.40.

¶32

Apparently, there is dispute between the Government and the contractor with reference to the value of work executed, Ext P4 completion certificate is clarified by the respondents, stating that only a portion of the work was completed. In so far as, the bill which is annexed to Ext.P4 indicates that the work executed by the contractor is valued only at ₹1,55,118.40, if there is any other dispute in relation to the quantity of work executed by him, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate the said dispute, as it comes within the realm of contractual obligation and evidence has to be adduced in the matter. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned single judge was justified in not interfering with the matter in respect of the entire claim. But in so far as the admitted amount of ₹1,55,118.40 is concerned, we are of the view that the contractor is entitled to receive the same. Learned Government pleader has submitted that the contractor is not willing to accept the same. We are of the view that the admitted amount has to be paid by sending the same by way of a Cheque or

¶33

W.A.2330/2019

¶34

¶35

Demand Draft within three weeks from today. As far as the other claims of

¶36

the contractor is concerned, if there is any dispute, it is open for him to approach the Civil Court in appropriate proceedings.

¶37

Writ appeal is disposed of as above.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶41

C.V. Varghese, v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.V. Varghese, v. the Executive Engineer

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

Ranjan M. Vs K.Sarojini Amma

Ranjan M. Vs K.Sarojini Amma

George Vattukulam Vs the State of Kerala

M.K.Devadas, Vs Ajayakumar K.P.

A.Murali Vs Union of India

Thomas Chacko, Vs Bank of India