Allowed

Abdul Khader T.E v. the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Limited(Sidco)

Kerala HC19 Nov 2020WP(C)/16936/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractor filed a writ petition seeking immediate payment of security deposit and retention money due from SIDCO. The court held that payment is due for works where the defect liability period has ended, refusing to withhold amounts for pending projects.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to payment of security deposit and retention money for works where defect liability period is over; payment for other works to be made after their respective defect liability perio

Abdul Khader T.E Vs the Kerala Small… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.16936 OF 2020(N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABDUL KHADER T.E AGED 48 YEARS PWD CONTRACTOR, M/S.SKS MARKETING, VAVAD POST-673 572, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN SMT. AISWARYA V.S.

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED(SIDCO), SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶12

BY ADV. MR.BIJU G., SC, SIDCO

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.16936 OF 2020(N)

¶15

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

Petitioner, who is a Contractor, was awarded the

¶18

work of various projects by the respondent for providing infrastructure facilities to SC/ST Colonies under the 'Self Sufficient Village' Scheme. He is

¶19

aggrieved by the delay in payment of retention money and security deposit. This writ petition is filed stating that a total amount of Rs.30,18,311/- is due to petitioner towards retention money and security

¶20

deposit. Petitioner has stated that the defect liability period was over.

¶21

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent has filed a statement admitting that the petitioner was awarded the work in 10 Scheduled Caste Colonies spread over 9 Panchayaths in 2 Districts. It is also admitted that security deposit remitted by the petitioner and retention money are due to petitioner.

¶22

WP(C).No.16936 OF 2020(N)

¶23

¶24

But according to the respondent, the same can be released only after the defect liability period in respect of all the works is over. It is also stated

¶25

that the security deposit remitted for the work is Rs.20,60,600/- and that retention money is a sum of Rs. 6,67,511. It is stated that in respect of the work at Perincherrykadavu SC Colony, the work was completed only on 17.03.2020 and the defect liability period for

¶26

the same would be over only by 17.03.2021. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- which is the

¶27

retention money in respect of the work of Valiyaparambu SC colony, is already paid to petitioner. It is stated that the respondent is the implementing agency for the Self Sufficient Village Scheme of the Scheduled Caste Development Department.

¶28

On the basis of the directions of this Court in R.P.No.1186 of 2019 in W.P.(C).No.21556 of 2019, the respondent has paid the entire amount given by the

¶29

WP(C).No.16936 OF 2020(N)

¶30

¶31

Scheduled Caste Department to SIDCO for the above

¶32

work, to the petitioner and other contractors without even retaining the centage admissible to SIDCO. It is stated that due to acute financial stringency they would not be able to make any further payment before the receipt of the funds from Scheduled Caste Development Department.

¶33

Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit pointing out his entitlement to get payment immediately on completion of the defect liability

¶34

period. According to the petitioner since the agreement is executed between the petitioner and the SIDCO, petitioner cannot be asked to wait for payment by the Government.

¶35

On considerations of the contentions of both sides, it is seen that work under the scheme has been executed on the basis of separate agreements. Respondent has also stated that the retention money in

¶36

WP(C).No.16936 OF 2020(N)

¶37

¶38

respect of the work in Valiyaparambu SC colony is already paid. Therefore there is no justification for delaying the payment until the completion of the defect liability period in respect of all the works. Petitioner would be entitled to be paid the amount due to him towards security deposit and retention amount in respect of all those works of which the defect liability period is over. The payment in respect of the work where liability period is not over, need be made only after the defect liability period is over. This shall be done within a period of 'four months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE

¶41

¶42

WP(C).No.16936 OF 2020(N)

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1

¶47

TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.SIDCO/RTA/104/19-20 DATED 18/01/20 FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶48

EXHIBIT P2

¶49

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13/07/20 OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

¶50

EXHIBIT P3

¶51

TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND BILL NO.C11 PERINCHERIKKADAVU 2013-14 DATED 05.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT SC DEPARTMENT OFFICER

Abdul Khader T.E v. the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Limited(Sidco)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Khader T.E v. the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation Limited(Sidco)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bindu Vs State of Kerala

K.R.Baiju Vs the General Manager, Southern Railway Head Quarters Office

M.P.Rajan Vs the District Registrar

Indira P. Vs the Central University of Kerala

P.K.Janardhanan Vs Central Warehousing Corporation

Dr. M.Kumaran Vs State of Kerala