Disposed

Vallikkat Earth Movers v. the General Manager

Kerala HC23 Oct 2020WP(C)/11546/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition by an earth mover contractor challenging foreclosure of a contract and seeking payment of dues, the petitioner abandoned foreclosure relief. The High Court directed the Southern Railway respondents to process outstanding claims and release amounts towards performance guarantee and security deposit within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to process petitioner's outstanding claims and release amounts towards performance guarantee and security deposit within three months.

Vallikkat Earth Movers Vs the General Manager — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.11546 OF 2020(P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VALLIKKAT EARTH MOVERS, ETTUMANNOOR, KANAKARI, KOTTAYAM-686 632 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, BOBBY JOSEPH, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. V.C.JOSEPH, VALLIKATTIL, ETTUMANNOOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI-600 003.

¶11

2 THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (CONSTRUCTION),SOUTHERN RAILWAY HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN, EGMORE, CHENNAI-600 003 IN CHARGE OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

3 THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER (CONSTRUCTION) SOUTHERN RAILWAY, EGMORE, CHENNAI-600 003.

¶13

4 THE CHIEF ENGINEER NORTH (CONSTRUCTION) SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM-682 016.

¶14

5 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER-II (CONSTRUCTION) SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM-682 016.

¶15

R1-R5 BY SRI.A.DINESH RAO, SC, RAILWAYS

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC.11546/2020

: 2 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 23^rd day of October, 2020

¶22

Petitioner, who has undertaken the work of New BG Line between Angamaly and Sabarimala-Proposed construction of Limited Use Subway at Chainage 4173, earthwork in forming bank, additional bridge at Ch:7183, regarding of road at chainage 5895, retaining walls, protective works, etc. between Angamaly and Kalady (including) stations, on behalf of the respondents, has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:-

¶23

“(i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari in so far as it relates to the recital pertaining to foreclosure of contract without liability on either side.

¶24

(ii) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.31,16,219/- due to the petitioner on account of 4^th part bill and Rs.49,41,031/- due as per the 5^th part bill thus totalling to Rs.80,57,247/- in respect of the work undertaken as per Ext.P1 and claimed as per Exts.P2 and P3 forthwith.

¶25

WPC.11546/2020

¶26

: 3 :

¶27

(iii) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.24,36,780/- due to the petitioner on account of Performance Guarantee and the amount due by way of Security Deposit in respect of the work undertaken as per Ext.P1.

¶28

(iv) Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction directing the respondents to prepare the final bill which comes to Rs.8,75,425/- in respect of the work undertaken as per Ext.P1 without any delay, and

¶29

(v) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶30

Relief No.(ii) has already been granted by the respondents in pursuance of an interim order of this Court dated 05.08.2020.

¶31

The petitioner has now filed IA No.1/2020 stating that the petitioner is not pressing relief No.(i) sought for in the writ petition and does not intend to resort to arbitration proceedings in relation to the issue of foreclosure of contract pertaining to the aforesaid work. In view of the said IA, what is remaining in the writ petition is to consider reliefs Nos.(iii)

¶32

and (iv).

¶33

Relief No.(iii) is to release an amount of

¶34

WPC.11546/2020

¶35

: 4 :

¶36

₹24,36,780/- due to the petitioner on account of performance guarantee and security deposit. Relief No.(iv) is to prepare the final bill which comes to ₹8,75,425/-, according to the petitioner.

¶37

As the petitioner has abandoned his challenge against the foreclosure of the agreement and the prayer No. (ii) has been already granted, this Court is of the view that prayer Nos.(iii) and (iv) of the petitioner for payment of his outstandings can be considered and bills be processed by the respondents.

¶38

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to process the petitioner's outstanding claims and release to the petitioner amounts towards performance guarantee and security deposit, within a period of three months, in accordance with law and of the terms of the agreement.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/23.10.2020

WPC.11546/2020

: 5 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER NO.W 496/CN/ERS/OT/04/2018 DATED 18.7.2018 ISSUED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY FO THE 4TH PART BILL. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE 5TH PART BILL. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 9.6.2020 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Vallikkat Earth Movers v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vallikkat Earth Movers v. the General Manager

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

Thambi Sebastian, Vs State of Kerala

Jain Builders Vs Union of India

Rekha Nair, Vs the District Telecom Committee

Dr.Mahesh P.G., Vs the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations

Shri. N.J.Pappachan Vs the Poothadi Grama Panchayath

M/S. Punarjani Securities Ltd. Vs Union of India