Disposed

V.G.S. Enterprises v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Kerala HC20 Jan 2022WP(C)/1664/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a contractor against Indian Oil Corporation, the High Court directed the competent authority to constitute a committee and consider the petitioner's representation regarding delayed work and deducted liquidated damages within three weeks, thereby disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to constitute a two-member Committee to consider the representation on liquidated damages and take a final decision within three weeks.

V.G.S. Enterprises Vs Indian Oil Corporation… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 30TH POUSHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 1664 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

V.G.S. ENTERPRISES

¶7

NEHRU STREET, ERODE, TAMIL NADU, PIN-638001,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. J.GOPALAKRISHNAN.
BY ADVS.
J.JULIAN XAVIER
FIROZ K.ROBIN
ROY JOSEPH
JOSE. V.V. (THENGATHARA)
ANIES MATHEW

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9,
ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶10

2THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER & STATE HEAD,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (MARKETING DIVISION),
KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O.,
KOCHIN-682036.

¶11

3CHIEF DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., 2ND FLOOR, PMK TOWER,
WAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673020.

¶12

SRI. M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC FOR IOC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 1664 OF 2022 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2022

¶17

The petitioner is a Contractor who undertook the work “Construction of new A site RO at Thiruvali Village, Nilambur to Wandoor, Malappuram District under Kozhikode DO”. The value of the work order was `1,40,85,920/-. There was a delay of 123 days in completing the work due to Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown restrictions.

¶18

The Petitioner’s grievance is that the 1^st respondent has illegally deducted 9% of the contract amount, which comes to `12,74,945/- from the bill amount payable to the petitioner, alleging delay of 123 days from 30.04.2020 to 31.08.2020. The petitioner has filed Ext.P11 representation before the 2^nd respondent on 17.09.2021 explaining the reasons for the delay and requesting to refund the deducted Liquidated Damages.

¶19

WP(C) NO. 1664 OF 2022 3

¶20

When this writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents will constitute a two member Committee to consider the grievance of the petitioner raised in Ext.P11 and will take a decision thereon.

¶21

In view of the said submission, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the competent authority under the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P11 representation in accordance with their procedure and take a final decision thereon, within a period of three weeks.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO. 1664 OF 2022 4

¶27

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1664/2022

¶28

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶29

`Exhibit`	`P1` `TRUE COPY OF` `DATED 16.12.2` `RESPONDENT.`	`THE` `019`	`LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND`
`Exhibit`	`P2` `TRUE COPY OF` `SUBMITTED BY` `3RD RESPONDEN`	`THE` `THE` `T.`	`LETTER DATED 24.3.2020` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE`
`Exhibit`	`P3` `TRUE COPY OF` `SUBMITTED BY` `RESPONDENT.`	`THE` `THE`	`LETTER DATED 21.7.2020` `PETITIONER TO THE 3RD`
`Exhibit`	`P4` `TRUE COPY OF` `SUBMITTED BY` `3RD RESPONDEN`	`THE` `THE` `T.`	`LETTER DATED 6.5.2021` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE`
`Exhibit`	`P5` `TRUE COPY OF` `DETAILED MEAS` `3RD RESPONDEN`	`THE` `UREM` `T.`	`RELEVANT PAGES OF THE` `ENT SHEET SIGNED BY THE`
`Exhibit`	`P6` `TRUE COPY OF` `APPROVED BY T` `RESPONDENT.`	`THE` `HE E`	`HINDRANCE STATEMENT` `NGINEER UNDER THE 3RD`
`Exhibit`	`P7` `TRUE COPY OF` `TRUST OF INDI`	`THE` `A DA`	`PRESS RELEASE BY PRESS` `TED 13.5.2020.`
`Exhibit`	`P8` `TRUE COPY OF` `ISSUED BY THE` `AND HIGHWAYS,`	`THE` `MIN` `GOV`	`LETTER DATED 3.6.2020` `ISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT` `T. OF INDIA.`
`Exhibit`	`P9` `TRUE COPY OF` `ISSUED BY THE`	`THE` `1ST`	`EMAIL DATED 10.6.2021` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P10` `TRUE COPY OF` `GENERAL CONDI`	`THE` `TION`	`RELEVANT PAGES OF` `S OF CONTRACT.`
`Exhibit`	`P11` `TRUE COPY OF` `17.9.2021 SUB` `BEFORE THE 2N`	`THE` `MITT` `D RE`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `ED BY THE PETITIONER` `SPONDENT.`

¶30

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS NIL

V.G.S. Enterprises v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.G.S. Enterprises v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

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

Hareesh M R Vs State of Kerala

D.Manoharan Vs Kerala Water Authority

Abhilash Kumar, Vs Agricultural Officer

Peter K. Joseph Vs Goodness Media Pvt. Ltd.

Shahul Hameed Vs the Kerala Water Authority

S.Padmakumari, Vs Aji K.R