Disposed

M/S. Madathil Enterprises, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2022WP(C)/8763/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought termination of an agreement and quashing of bank guarantee invocation. Court directed second respondent to consider petitioner's representation within two months after consulting other respondents and grant opportunity of hearing before final orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to consider Representation (Ext.P13) within 2 months with opportunity of hearing before final order.

M/S. Madathil Enterprises, Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 8763 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 8763 OF 2022

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

M/S. MADATHIL ENTERPRISES, TMC - XXVI/63, NEEROLICKAL BUILDING, MANAKKADU ROAD, THOUDPUZHA 685 608, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI. JILMON JOHN.

¶10

BY ADVS. SANTHOSH MATHEW ARUN THOMAS KARTHIKA MARIA ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL ABI BENNY AREECKAL LEAH RACHEL NINAN MATHEW NEVIN THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS, 2ND FLOOR, ANNEXE BUILDING, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶13

2 THE GENERAL MANAGER, KITCO LTD, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT FEMITH'S, PB NO. 4407, PUTHIYA ROAD, NH BYPASS VENNALA, KOCHI 682 028.

¶14

3 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND BOARD, 2ND FLOOR, FELICITY SQUARE MG ROAD, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA 695 001.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, SC FOR R2 & 3, SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 8763 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶21

W.P.(C.) No. 8763 of 2022

¶22

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2022

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

¶25

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the Respondents to terminate the Ext. P3 Agreement and re-tender the work without any risk or cost to the petitioner;

¶26

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the Respondents not to invoke the bank guarantees of INR 73,23,232/- and INR 22,35,908/- or encash the demand draft for INR 73,23,232/as provided by the petitioner until a court of competent jurisdiction has made a determination as to whether or not the Petitioner has committed a default under the Ext. P-3 agreement that merits such invocation; and (iii) Grant such other reliefs which are just and necessary in the interest of justice.” [SIC]

¶27

2. When this writ petition came up for consideration,

¶28

the counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will be

¶29

satisfied if a direction is issued to consider Ext.P13 representation. The counsel submitted that even though

¶30

WP(C) NO. 8763 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

Ext.P13 was considered by the authority concerned as per Ext.P14, in para 8 of Ext.P14, it is stated that the general escalation can be granted only if Government and KIIFB takes an ‘in principle decision’ which has a great financial impact/consensuses with over all scenario of the state. In the concluding portion of Ext.P14, it is stated that the petitioner is requested to proceed with the work as per the accepted revised estimate and complete the work at the earliest, failing to which they will be forced to terminate the contract agreement and arrange the balance work at your risk and cost. Since, it is stated in Ext.P14 that a consultation with the Government and KIIFB is necessary, the 2^nd respondent can consult the matter with the 1^st and 3^rd respondents and take a decision in Ext.P13 within a time frame.

¶33

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner :

¶34

The 2^nd respondent will consider Ext.P13 and pass appropriate orders in it, in consultation with the 1^st and 3^rd respondents as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within

¶35

WP(C) NO. 8763 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

Before passing final orders, the 2^nd respondent will

¶39

give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶40

Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶41

SKS

¶42

WP(C) NO. 8763 OF 2022

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8763/2022

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶46

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE E- TENDER NO. DSYA/KITCO/CL/35/2018 DATED 16.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.02.2019 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 09.03.2019 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT PROVIDED ALONG WITH EXT. P1 NOTICE.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KITCO STADIUM/03/2021 DATED 01.03.2021 SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT DATED 24.03.2021 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 24.04.2021.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.08.2021 THE SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 08.09.2021 DATED SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.09.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶47

WP(C) NO. 8763 OF 2022

¶48

¶49

Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 26.11.2021 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.11.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.02.2022 SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.02.2022 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P14	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 08.03.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

M/S. Madathil Enterprises, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Madathil Enterprises, v. State of Kerala

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

Rajesh M.K. Sulabha, Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Sreeja Vs Anilkumar P

Dr.Reema Thomas Kochupurakkal Vs T.S.Grancy

P N Unnikrishnan., Vs State of Kerala

Fathima Karama A.M. Vs the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations

C.N.Purushothaman, Vs State of Kerala