Dismissed

Raju P.C. v. the Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Kerala HC13 Dec 2019WP(C)/31417/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the respondent, BSNL, to pay the balance amount due to the petitioner under a contract for pipe laying work, split over two payment milestones within a three-month period.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to receive balance payment due from respondent, 50% within 45 days and the rest within three months of judgment.

Raju P.C. Vs the Chairman and Managing… — 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 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.31417 OF 2019(B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAJU P.C., PALAKUNNATH HOUSE, ASANKAVALA, VELLAD.P.O, KANNUR DIST PIN-670002, KERALA.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.V.K.PRASAD SRI.M.PRAVEESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, 8TH FLOOR, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001

¶11

2 THE BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE), REPRESENTED BY CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶12

3 THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, BALAN K. NAIR ROAD, ASOKAPURAM KOZHIKODE-673001

¶13

4 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER(CP), TELECOM, BHARAT SANCAHR NIGAM LIMITED, BALAN K NAIR ROAD, ASOKAPURAM, KOZHIKODE-673001

¶14

R1-4 BY SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

W.P. (C) No. 31417 of 2019

¶18

W.P. (C) No. 31417 of 2019

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner is a contractor. He has executed satisfactorily a pipe laying work of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) under the third respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the final payment due in respect of the work is not being effected. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the BSNL.

¶22

The fact that the work referred to in the writ petition has been executed satisfactorily by the petitioner is not in dispute. If that be so, the BSNL is bound to effect the admitted balance payment due to the petitioner.

¶23

The writ petition, in the circumstances, is disposed of directing the respondent concerned to effect the balance payment due to the petitioner in respect of the work referred to in the writ petition within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶24

¶25

W.P. (C) No. 31417 of 2019

¶26

this judgment, of which 50% shall be paid within 45 days from that

¶27

date.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶30

YKB

¶31

¶32

W.P. (C) No. 31417 of 2019

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.08.2019 ISSUED BY SYNDICATE BANK, NADUVIL TOWN BRANCH TO THE PETITIONER TO RECOVER THE OVERDUE ALONG WITH PENALTY OF 2% ON THE UNPAID AMOUNT

¶36

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.08.2019 SENT BY PETITIONER TOT HE 3RD RESPONDENT SEEKING IMMEDIATE PAYMENT OF PENDING BILLS

¶37

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF PENDING BILLS DATED 28.10.2019 FOR TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.25,13,371.54/-(RUPEES TWENTY FIVE LAKH THIRTEEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY ONE AND FIFTY FOUR PAISE) FOR COMPLETED WORKS BY PETITIONER UNDER 11 INVOICES RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT (RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT) FROM THE OFFICE OF 3RD RESPONDENT

¶38

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.21640/2019 DATED 26.08.2019

¶39

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

YKB

Raju P.C. v. the Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju P.C. v. the Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

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

M/S.Ascens Book and Advertisers Vs the Airport Director

Ramesh K. Vs Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Kanhangad

Nabeesath M. Vs the Manager

Ruby Abraham Vs Principal Chief Forest Conservator (F, L and R)

Denish, Vs State of Kerala

Maya Devi Vs the State of Kerala