Allowed

M/S Mariya Constructions v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC4 Oct 2019WP(C)/22280/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Kerala directed the Kerala Water Authority to release the admitted balance amount owed to the petitioner contractor for work executed. The court mandated payment within two months of receiving the judgment copy.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to release the admitted balance amount due to the petitioner within two months of receipt of the judgment's copy.

M/S Mariya Constructions Vs Kerala Water… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 12TH ASWINA, 1941 WP(C).No.22280 OF 2019(H)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

M/S MARIYA CONSTRUCTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, JOSE K.L., AGED 64 YEARS, S/O LOUIS, 14/1375 KAKKANATT, THOTTILPEEDIKA, CHEVARAMBALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 017.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE SRI.T.ANCY SMT.N.B.FATHIMA SULFATH SMT.K.BINCYMOL SHRI.DAJISH JOHN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶10

2 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.CIRCLE, KANNUR-670012.

¶11

¶12

W.P. (C) No.22280 of 2019

¶13

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER SUPPLY DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, TALIPARAMAB, KANNUR-670 141.

¶14

R1-3 BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

W.P. (C) No.22280 of 2019

¶18

W.P. (C) No. 22280 of 2019

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner is a contractor. They have executed a

¶21

work for the Kerala Water Authority. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the Water Authority in releasing the amounts payable to them in respect of the said work.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

¶23

also the learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority.

¶24

The fact that the petitioner has executed the work referred to in the writ petition satisfactorily has not been disputed by the Water Authority.

¶25

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release to the petitioner the admitted balance amount due to them in respect of the work referred to in the writ petition, within two months from the date

¶26

¶27

W.P. (C) No.22280 of 2019

¶28

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶31

YKB

¶32

¶33

W.P. (C) No.22280 of 2019

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22280/2019

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED 14.3.2017

¶37

EXHIBIT P2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 15.10.2016

¶38

EXHIBIT P3 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CB3 VOUCHER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶39

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

YKB

M/S Mariya Constructions v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mariya Constructions 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

Muhammed Adil.M.K Vs State of Kerala

Vaduthala Public Library & Reading Room Vs the District Collector

Ibrahim K., Vs the District Telecom Committee

Nilambur Municipality Vs State of Kerala

R.Divakaran, Vs the State of Kerala

M/S Mariya Constructions Vs Kerala Water Authority