Allowed

Binu Mathew v. Managing Director

Kerala HC3 Aug 2022WP(C)/11148/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses a writ petition by a contractor seeking the refund of performance guarantee, maintenance, and trial run amounts. The court directed the respondents to refund these dues within three months, conditional upon the petitioner executing a simple bond.

What did the court decide?

The respondents shall refund the Security Deposit/Performance Guarantee, maintenance amount, bank guarantee and trial run amount due to the petitioner, within three months, subject to the petitioner e

Binu Mathew Vs Managing Director — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 11148 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

BINU MATHEW AGED 43 YEARS KOTTAVIRUTHIL HOUSE, ANAPRAMPAL NORTH P.O., THALAVADY, ALAPPUZHA - 689 577. BY ADVS. JOMY GEORGE(J-272) R.PADMARAJ M.J.BENNY DEEPAK MOHAN CHITRA N. DAS RISHAB S.

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 024.

¶9

2 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

¶10

KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.CIRCLE, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶11

3 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER SUPPLY PROJECT DIVISION, P.H.CIRCLE, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶12

BY ADV.P.M.JOHNY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR WATER AUTHORITY

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 11148 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 03^rd day of August, 2022

¶18

The petitioner successfully completed certain

¶19

works entrusted to him by the Kerala Water Authority. Acknowledging satisfactory completion of the work, the petitioner was paid with the bill amount and disbursed the trial run amount upto the final bill, on furnishing bank guarantee.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶21

that the guarantee period of the work expired on 31.12.2021 and there is no justification in withholding the performance guarantee, maintenance and trial run amounts and the bank guarantee.

¶22

Learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority submitted that, the actual commissioning is not over and hence, the amounts due to the petitioner can be refunded only on the petitioner executing bank guarantee, which has been specified in the Notice Inviting Tender also.

¶23

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶24

WP(C) NO. 11148 OF 2022

¶25

3 that, the work having been satisfactorily completed and the guarantee period being over, there cannot be any demand for bank guarantee as a condition for refund of the amounts due to the petitioner. It is pointed out that, under similar circumstances, this Court had directed refund of the amounts, on the contractor executing a simple bond.

¶26

Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and having gone through the judgment in W.P. (C).No.9823 of 2018, rendered under similar circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as under;

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/3-8

WP(C) NO. 11148 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11148/2022

¶35

PETITIO	NER’S EXHI	BITS
EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY 10/10/2017 NO.KWA/PHC ACCEPTING	OF THE ISSUED /PKD/KII THE BID	LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE DATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HAVING FB/THACHANATTUKARA/16 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY PKD DATED THE 2ND RE	OF THE 17/10/20 SPONDENT	AGREEMENT NO. 07/17-18/SE/PHC/ 17 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND .
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY DATED 31/1	OF THE 2/2019 I	WORK COMPLETION CERTIFICATE SSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COP 13/09/2021	Y OF ISSUED	THE RTI APPLICATION DATED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P4A	TRUE COPY 07/10/2021	OF THE ISSUED	RTI APPLICATION REPLY DATED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P5	A TRUE 01/03/2022	COPY O SENT BY	F THE REPRESENTATION DATED THE PETITIONER.

¶36

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶37

TRUE COPY

¶38

P.A. TO JUDGE

Binu Mathew v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binu Mathew v. Managing Director

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

North Stone Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kitco Ltd.

Moosa Vs the Forest Range Officer

Shan S Vs the State of Kerala

Central Avenue Vs the Managing Director

K.v.Shaji Vs Pazhangad Fishermen Development Welfare Co-Operative Society Ltd. No. Df(E). 118/92

Joselin Peter Vs State of Kerala