Dismissed

M/S. Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd., v. the Executive Engineer

Kerala HC13 Jun 2022WP(C)/7157/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ petition seeking redressal of a dispute between M/s. Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd. and the Central Public Works Department regarding a work order. The court observed that the dispute had been settled amicably through mediation under the mutually agreed terms.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as the dispute was settled amicably through mediation.

M/S. Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd., Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2®22 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

!e!E{C) NO. 7157 0F 2L92g

¶6

EEIITIONER/fr

¶7

M/S. VRIDDHI INFRATECH INDIA PVT. LTD.,

¶8

PLOT NO.33®/1, GROUND FLOOR ROAD NO.25, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD-500034, TELANCANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT, VENRATA RATNA PRASAD Y. BY ADV M.S.AMAL DHARSAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S :

¶10

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶11

(ENGINEER IN CHARGE), CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

¶12

(CPWD), OFFICE 0F THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IISER TVM PROJECT DIVISION-II, MELETHUMELE, VATTIY00R KAVU P.O. , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695®13 .

¶13

THE CHIEF PROJECT MANAGER,

¶14

CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (CPWD), OFFICE 0F THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IISER TVM ZONE, MELETHUMELE, VATTIY00RKAVU P. O. , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695013. THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (PRC),

¶15

CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (CPWD), 1ST FLOOR, C- WINC, RAJAJI BHAVAN, 3RD AVENUE, BESANT NACAR, CHENNAI, TAMI LNADU -6®®®9® .

¶16

BY ADV KRISHNA S., CGC

¶17

QIELER PRESEN_T+

¶18

ASGI S. MANU

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION 0N 13.06.2022, THE COURT 0N THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 7157 0F 2®22

¶21

TUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 13th day of June, 2022

¶23

It is reported that the disputes between the parties was settled amicably through mediation. A copy of the memorandum of judgment is also made available. The writ petition is hence disposed of, making the term of settlement a part of this judgment.

SdLl-

V.G ARUN

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 7157 0F 2®22

¶29

APPENDIX OF WP(C} 7157/2®22

¶30

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit PI	TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 09/®8/2®17.
Exhil)it P2	TRUE COPY OF THE BILL 0F QUANTITIES FORMING PART 0F THE AGREEMENT WHICH PRESCRIBES THE TOTAL QUANTITY 0F HARD ROCK.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY 0F THE RUNNING BILL DATED 25/®8/2®20 WHICH SHOWS THE TOTAL HARD ROCK QUANTITY EXCAVATED AS AGAINST THE EXHIBIT P2.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF CCC PRESCRIBING THE FORMULA AND METHOD OF PAYMENT .
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY 0F THE LETTER DATED 23/®8/2®21 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT T0 THE PETITIONER .
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT 0F CLAIMS DATED 15/®9/2®21 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY 01= TllE REPRESENTATION DATED ®3/®2/2®22 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER T0 THE IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY, OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 13/05/2®2® ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 12/11/2®2® .
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Annexure R1(a)	A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM 0F PAYMENTS 0F THE 35TH RA BILL PAID TO THE PETITIONER

¶31

ryftycy

¶32

ERH\tiffiKELEELAHnI REEEBBffiHE©RE GEREHRE

¶33

€REffiGRE G®ELjRH REffiELELB

¶34

2=|d floo_rf above SB!, High C_our±__builciinCi, Emakulem9 Kochi -31a Phao484-25622

¶35

EREciRIe9E"O"4Jfr„|,a.d Dated „[Ga`.Go.c2o2

¶36

From

¶37

.rl

¶38

The Nodal Officer, High Court Mediation Centre.

¶39

¶40

The Registrar Uudicia!), High Court o-f Keraiaa

¶41

EFTnakuiam

¶42

Sir,

¶43

Sub:-Mediation of referred cases -Reg.

¶44

RI€S.a-RI€Serrat?,rae:in.naanth.P.bcc)„1J.5]./.a2a&uo6nu.a

¶45

dated a¢'/A/#.&,Qf the Hon'b!e High court of Kera!a,

¶46

¶47

The report of the Mediator in the matter along with the enclosures is furnished herevtu`ith for information and necessary action.

¶48

Yours faithfu"y,

¶49

'j:i.:i-i,I-

¶50

Nociai Officer Ernakuiam Mediation Centre

¶51

Rzi Rzi

¶52

=nc!: 1e Report of Ehe Miec2&iatoi", Set[€lement Agreemen`t.

¶53

2_ Copy o.F re:Serr~ele ®'rder Qa6-ued .o6/ rf / d& gS `th-e tAigh Ccjuriit oE \wkex=ralao

¶54

3c Copy Sf Peti`:={cn.

¶55

Add`.R(GA)

¶56

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶57

WP(C) No.7157 of 2022

¶58

M/s.Vriddhi lnfratech India Pvt.Ltd Petitioner

¶59

Vs.

¶60

EiR

¶61

The Executive Engineer (Engineer ln Charge) : Respondents & Others

¶62

REPORT SLJBMIITED BY T[JE MEDIATOR

¶63

ADV. IOSE IOSEPH

¶64

Mediated, matter is settled.

¶65

Terms and conditions are attached herewith.

¶66

¶67

Dated this the 6th day of June, 2022.

¶68

Ernakulam Mediation Centre

¶69

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶70

W.P.(C) 7157 of 2022

¶71

Petitioner Respondents

¶72

M/s. Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd.

¶73

The Executive Engineer & Anr.

¶74

MEMORANDUM C F SETTLEMENT FILE NDER SECTION 89 0F THE FTHE CIVIL P_ROCEDURE (ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RE LUTION1. RULES, 2008

¶75

a :o°±E±t¥:rnt::S_ agree to settle their case amicably in the following terms and

¶76

Claims pertaining to items with serial Nos 4, 5, 6 and 8 of Exhibit P6, of the above writ petition shall be considered, and a decision taken thereon, including its quantification. The amounts determined as payable thereupon, shall be disbursed or adjusted against outstanding advances (as the case may be) at the earliest, but not beyond a period of 45 days from the date of this settlement agreement. The petitioner has to produce necessary documentary evidence and book of accounts as per the Contract conditions.

¶77

¶78

2 . The RA bills, escalation bills, material reconciliation shall be passed at the earliest, but not beyond a period of 45 days from the date of this settlement agreement or submission of the bills by the petitioner in complete shape whichever is later. The various statements such as extra item statement (s), deviation statement, substitutional item statement (s) shall also be initiated at the earliest, but not beyond a period of 45 days from the date of this settlement agreement. The necessary supporting documents are to be provided by the Petitioner on demand.

¶79

No coercive action shall be taken by the Respondent with respect to bank guarantees, submitted as a security for Mobilization advances, the time legal options provided in the Contract agreement (be;iii-gNo.ol/CPM/EE/IISER TVM PD-II/2ol7-18) and otherwise are exhausted. The guarantees shall be duly extended by the Petitioner from time to time and kept in force till such time as Respondent demands.

¶80

4 . The Petitioner have no objection to foreclose the Contract under clause 13 of the General Conditions of the Contract 2ol4 which form part of the Contract Agreement (bearing No.ol/CPM/EE/IISER TVM PD11/20 and getting the balance works execiited through separate

¶81

K|raia §tac Mediation and con¢mitl®n cmbe crf rvgrthv°tkyrtyfutAVA^.Or# i ty

¶82

¶83

tendering process. The Petitioner shall remove all the T&P, Balance material, labor huts, debris at the earliest but not later than 45 days from the date of issue of such order/orders to remove it by the Respondent.

¶84

The Respondent may, in consultation with the Petitioner adjust receivables determined as per clause (1) and (2) above against payables.

¶85

6.AIL other conditions of the Contract agreement bearing No.ol/CPM/EE/IISER TVM PD-II/2ol7-18 are in force and are not amended/amendable under this Memorandum of Settlement

¶86

Dated 6th day of June 2o22

¶87

cfuf>

¶88

Respondent

¶89

Welal.StotoMediationandC®nciliationCeutre High Court cit Kerala Kachi -6.2 031

¶90

¶91

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶92

``+i I Counsel for the Respondent

M/S. Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd., v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Vriddhi Infratech India Pvt. Ltd., v. the Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Molly Thomas Vs the District Collector

Vivek.S., Vs Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Abdul Khader, Vs Union of India

Swapna Siju Vs the Managing Director

Navin Construction Corporation Vs Kerala Water Authority

Eicl Limited Vs Union of India