Appeal against a decree in terms of an arbitrator's award concerning a Kallada Irrigation Project contract. The award amount had been executed and paid, and the revocation statute relied on by the State was held unconstitutional in James Varghese. The court declined interference and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1945
MFA NO. 657 OF 1998
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE, KOTTARAKARA
O.P.(ARB)NO.9/87
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVT. OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM.
2THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, K.I.P CIRCLE, KOLLAM.
BY SRI. DHEERAJ A S, GP
RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:
G.THOMAS
CONTRACTOR, JOSE BUNGLOW, PIDAVOOR P O,
PATHANAPURAM.
BY ADV SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MFA NO. 657 OF 1998
2
JUDGMENT
This MFA has been filed challenging the judgment in O.P(Arb) No.9/87 on the file of Sub Court Kottarakara. The respondent herein was awarded certain work in connection with the Kallada Irrigation Project. Disputes arose between the State and the respondent leading to initiation of Arbitration proceedings. The Arbitrator passed an award for a sum of Rs.1,03,479/- together with 6% interest and also held that the termination of the contract was illegal. An application was filed by the State challenging the award. However, through judgment in O.P(Arb) No.9/87 on the files of Sub Court Kottarakara, the challenge was repelled and a decree was passed in terms of the award of the Arbitrator.
MFA NO. 657 OF 1998
3
Project. It is submitted that the validity of the provisions of the said enactment were challenged before this Court. It is submitted that this Court had found that the provisions of the aforesaid Act were unconstitutional. It is submitted that the Supreme Court through the judgment reported as Secretary to Government of Kerala, Irrigation Department and Others v. James Varghese and Others [2022(3) KHC SN 22] has held that the Act though within the Legislative competence of the State Legislature, it is unconstitutional as it encroaches upon the Judicial power of the State. It is submitted that in the light of the above facts, nothing further survives for consideration in this MFA.
MFA NO. 657 OF 1998
4
amounts have been paid to the respondent. Therefore, at this distance of time, I don’t deem it necessary to consider the challenge to the judgment in O.P(Arb) No.9/87 on the files of Sub Court Kottarakara.
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is therefore dismissed.
Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE
DK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the MFA challenging the decree in O.P(Arb) No.9/87 survived when the decree had been executed and amounts paid.
Whether the Sub Court's decree in terms of the Arbitrator's award required any interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Secretary to Government of Kerala, Irrigation Department and Others v. James Varghese and OthersRelied on¶23
2022(3) KHC SN 22
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, Irrigation Department
The Superintending Engineer, K.I.P Circle, Kollam
G. Thomas
Gopinath P.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court