Disposed

Maniyan Pillai v. Divisional Railway Manager

Kerala HC3 Nov 2022WP(C)/6793/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging non-refund of contract amount despite prior court direction. Court held arbitration clause is binding and directed respondents to refer dispute to arbitration within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to ensure the dispute is referred to arbitration in terms of Clause 9 of the agreement within one month of the judgment's receipt.

Maniyan Pillai Vs Divisional Railway Manager — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 6793 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

1 MANIYAN PILLAI

¶7

AGED 63 YEARS S/O. KUTTAN PILLAI, KARTHIKA, NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, NEENDAKARA P.O, KOLLAM – 691582.

¶8

BY ADVS. P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER

¶11

SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 690514.

¶12

2 THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMMERCIAL DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 690514.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED, SC, RAILWAYS SHRI.C.DINESH, CGC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO.6793 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 03^rd day of November, 2022

¶20

The petitioner had entered into Ext.P1 contract with the 1^st respondent for installation of 12 CCTVs in Platform number 4 and 8 TVs in Platform No.5 at the Kollam Railway Station. The duration of the agreement was for three years. After installation of the TVs, platform No.4 was demolished for the purpose of reconstruction. As a result, the petitioner incurred huge loss. The petitioner therefore requested the respondents to refund the proportionate amount in terms of Clause 6.5 of Ext.P1 agreement. The respondents having failed to act on the request, the petitioner approached this Court and by Ext.P2 judgment, the 1^st respondent was directed to consider petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within one month. This writ petition is filed alleging that, in spite of the direction in Ext.P2 judgment, the respondents are

¶21

WP(C) NO.6793 OF 2021

¶22

¶23

not acting on the petitioner's representation and refunding the amount in terms of the Clause 6.5.

¶24

Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended

¶26

that in the light of Clause 6.5 of Ext.P1 agreement and the direction in Ext.P2 judgment, the respondents are bound to refund the amount.

¶27

Learned Central Government Counsel submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy under Clause 9, as per which any difference of opinion between the Railway Administration and the licensee can be referred to the sole arbitrator appointed by the General Manager, Southern Railway.

¶28

Learned Counsel fo r the petitioner submitted the petitioner will be put to undue prejudice by referring the dispute to arbitration at this point of time. In the light of Clause 9 of Ext.P1, which is binding on the petitioner as well as the respondents,

¶29

WP(C) NO.6793 OF 2021

¶30

¶31

I am left with no choice, other than to direct the respondents to invoke the arbitration clause.

¶32

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, directing the respondents to ensure that the dispute is referred to arbitration in terms of Clause 9 of Ext.P1 within one month of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

NB/3-11

WP(C) NO.6793 OF 2021

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6793/2021

¶40

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 10.04.2008. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 8508 OF 2011, DATED 18.03.2011. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REMINDER SEND BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENTS, DATED 31.08.2011. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REMINDER SEND BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENTS, DATED 12/08/2011. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI DATED 17.09.2011. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN JUNE,2019. RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER PERMITTING EXTENSION OF CONTRACT EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.02.2020 SENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶42

TRUE COPY

¶43

P.A. TO JUDGE

Maniyan Pillai v. Divisional Railway Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maniyan Pillai v. Divisional Railway 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

Sahadevan Vs the District Collector Thrissur

Sunder Builders Vs Chief Engineer (Nw)

Neville Xavier Vs the Regional Manager, State Bank of India

Nithin, Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Asian Developers Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Palathra Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited Vs . State of Kerala