Partly allowed

Molecules Enviro Care, v. the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

Kerala HC8 Nov 2023WP(C)/17293/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought payment of balance service charges for an Effluent Treatment Plant. Court held absent objections on record, amounts cannot be refused, but allowed an adjournment for the competent authority to conduct a proceeding within two weeks to settle dues and interest liability before payment.

What did the court decide?

Compellence on the 1st Respondent's competent authority to hear the petitioner within two weeks, settle the proceeding of amounts due, and disburse eligible sums within one month thereafter with 8% p.

Molecules Enviro Care, Vs the Plantation… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 17293 OF 2019

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

MOLECULES ENVIRO CARE, SREEPADAM, OPP. SBI,
PUTHIYIDOM, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA-690 502,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
S. PADMASURAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O K.SUKUMARAN,
PANCHAMI, PUTHUPPALLY P.O., KAYAMKULAM,
ALAPPUZHA-690 527.

¶6

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

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT KOTTAYAM, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM-686 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶9

2 THE ASSISTANT MANAGER, KASARGODE ESTATE, THE PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. MULIYAR P.O., ENMAKAJE VILLAGE, CHENGALA (VIA) KASARGODE-671 542.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.N.RAJESH

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 17293/19

JUDGMENT

T he petitioner says that even though they have completed

¶16

construction of an Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) for the 1 st respondent, as early as in May 2017, and though no objections/disputes have been raised against its quality in any manner whatsoever until now, they are refusing to pay the balance amount of Rs.10,39,850/-, which became eligible to them in May 2017. They thus pray that the respondents be directed to disburse to them the said amount, along with 12% interest from May 2017 until it is paid, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶17

2 . The afore submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, were vehemently opposed by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Sri.N.Rajesh, saying that, even though the petitioner has completed the work of the ‘ETP’, it has several issues and therefore, that it could not be commissioned at all. He, however, conceded that there is nothing on record to even indicate that the petitioner had been notified of this, or that any liability has been fixed against them; and therefore, prayed that if this Court is so inclined, the competent Authority of the 1 st respondent will hear them

¶18

WPC 17293/19

¶19

¶20

and take a final decision without any avoidable delay .

¶21

3 . I must say that when the records available do not reveal

¶22

any objection having been raised against the petitioner; nor the respondents having produced on record any material to indicate that any liability has been cast upon them, normally, the eligible amounts cannot be refused to be disbursed. This is more so because, it is conceded by the respondents that, except the afore amount of Rs.10,39,850/-, other amounts have been disbursed; and obviously, therefore, if they are to retain the said amount, there should be compelling reasons, which should have been made available in a proceeding settled within the rigour of limitation. Prima facie, I do not find any such having been done; and in such perspective, this Court would have been fully justified in directing the respondents to release the amount without any delay.

¶23

However, acceding to the request of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents for one more opportunity, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition with the following directions:

¶24

a ) The competent Authority of the 1 st respondent will hear the

¶25

¶26

WPC 17293/19

¶27

petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and settle a proceeding as to the amounts due to them; which can be done after deducting any amount that may have already been adjudicated and found against them, during the period of limitation, but without including any other amount within its ambit.

¶28

b ) On the afore being done, the amounts eligible shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter; failing which, it will carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from May 2017 until it is actually paid.

¶29

After I dictated this part of the judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that this Court may also allow his client to raise a claim for the Earnest Money Deposit, which is still retained by the respondents.

¶30

Needless to say, every amount eligible to the petitioner will be disbursed through the afore directions and I do not think any further clarifications are necessary.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶33

RR

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

WPC 17293/19

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17293/2019

¶38

`PETITION`	`ER EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE E-TENDER` `NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT,` `DATED 28.9.2015.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE WORK ORDER` `ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF` `THE PETITIONER, DATED 8.6.2016.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE AGREEMENT` `EXECUTED BETWEEN THE IST RESPONDENT AND THE` `PETITIONER, DATED 20.6.2016.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INVOICE` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, DATED` `5.11.2016.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REQEUST MADE BY` `THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT,` `DATED 4.11.2016.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY` `THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT,` `DATED 29.3.2017.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FINAL INVOICE` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE` `RESPONDENT, DATED 26.4.2017.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE FORWARDING` `LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED` `15.5.2017.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P9`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 14.8.2017 ALONG` `WITH THE STORE RECEIPTS.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P10`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST` `RESPONDENT, DATED 23.10.2017.`

Molecules Enviro Care, v. the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Molecules Enviro Care, v. the Plantation Corporation of Kerala 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

K.Suresh Babu Vs the District Collector

Baburaj .D Vs the Manager

M.T.P. Muhammed Vs Oriental Insurance Company

Bhaskaran Pathappilly Vs Malayattoor - Neeleeswaram Grama Panchayath

Krishnakumar.S Vs District Collector

Sathyadas Vs Conservator of Forest