Disposed

T.D. Jose v. the Managing Director

Kerala HC11 Dec 2020WP(C)/9152/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner alleging non-payment and refusal to refund earnest money under a coconut crushing agreement. The Court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 representation within two months.

T.D. Jose Vs the Managing Director — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

WP(C).No.9152 OF 2020(T)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.9152 OF 2020(T)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

T.D. JOSE AGED 64 YEARS S/O.DEVASSY, THEKKAYIL AYIRUKKARAN, KORATTY P.O., PIN-680 309.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE COCONUT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KSCDC, ELATHUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 303.

¶13

SMT.SANJANA.R.NAIR,SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.9152 OF 2020(T)

¶16

¶17

P.V.ASHA, J.

¶18

---------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.9152 of 2020-T

¶19

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2020

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner, who was given the contract of coconut and copra crushing processing for its oil extraction based on Ext.P1 tender notification, complains that payment is not made in terms of the agreement and the earnest money deposit of Rs.5 lakhs is not refunded to him. Pointing out this, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 representation before the respondent on 07.10.2017 and thereafter Ext.P4 on 26.03.2018.

¶22

I heard Smt.Sanjana R.Nair, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent also, who submits that audit is going on.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied with a direction to the respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 representation.

¶24

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 representation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶25

Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶26

rtr/

¶27

WP(C).No.9152 OF 2020(T)

¶28

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT ON 09.	NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE 12.2014.
EXHIBIT P2	A COPY OF THE EXECUTED BY THE R	AGREEMENT DATED 02.03.2015 ESPONDENT WITH THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE	REQUEST DATED 07.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE	PETITION FILED ON 26.03.2018.

T.D. Jose v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.D. Jose v. the Managing Director

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.v.Ramachandran Vs K.Sudheer

Vineeth J. Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Balakrishnan C, Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Police

Jacob Joseph Vs C.K.Vijayan

Sivalingam Sugan Vs Thomas Joseph Nellikamannii

Victim Vs Union of India