Disposed

Kerala Water Authority Represented by Its Managing Director v. Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 602

Kerala HC10 Jan 2024RP/23/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court reviewed an order directing payment to a contractor. The court rejected the argument that the lack of a specific PWD accounts code provision for Bank Guarantee payments was fatal, noting the transaction was consensual and balanced interests. An extension was granted for compliance.

What did the court decide?

Review petition closed, but time for compliance with the original order extended by two months.

Kerala Water Authority Represented by Its… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 20TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

RP NO. 23 OF 2024

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 29667/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶9

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR JALA BHAVAN,OBSERVATORY HILLS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

¶10

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY (NR) MALAPARAMBA.P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 695033

¶11

3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PUBLIC HEALTH CIRCLE (KOZHIKODE), MALAPARAMBA.P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673009

¶12

4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY PH DIVISON (KOZHIKODE), MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673009 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOHNY

¶13

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶14

REENA ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. 602, SHIV TOWER, PATTO PLAZA, PANAJI, GOA, PIN – 403001 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BY ADV. SRI.P.SHANES METHAR

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

RP No. 23 of 2024 in W.P.(C).No.29667 of 2023 : 2 :

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition, seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 29.09.2023, has been impelled solely on the ground that, as per the “PWD accounts code”, there is no provision for making payment of the remaining amount to the contractor on the strength of a Bank Guarantee.

¶19

Interestingly, the judgment in question would clearly show that the directions therein were issued based on the consent of the parties, and because it was admitted that the delay in the work was on account of no reason that can be attributed to the contractor. It was also conceded that it is on account of the delay in obtaining the road cutting permits, that the contractor was incapacitated from continuing with the work; and it was in such manner, so as to balance the rival interests of both sides, that the balance amounts, after the 80% – that was admitted to have been already paid – were directed to be disbursed, however, on the strength of a Bank Guarantee.

¶20

Indubitably, the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) would not suffer any prejudice because, the amounts that they have been directed to be paid to the contractor will be fully secured and protected by a Bank Guarantee, which they can invoke if there is any liability found against the latter in the future.

¶21

Obviously, the attempt of the review petitioner is to avoid

¶22

RP No. 23 of 2024 in W.P.(C).No.29667 of 2023

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

payment one way or the other. I am afraid that this cannot be acceded to, particularly when they had earlier conceded before this Court that the amounts will be paid on the strength of a Bank Guarantee. The absence of a specific provision to this effect in the “PWD accounts code” would, in my firm view, be not a deterrent, particularly in the light of the afore factual circumstances.

¶25

Sensing the mind of this Court as afore, the learned Standing Counsel for the 'KWA', submitted that, in the afore circumstances, his client may be given at least a month's time more to comply with the directions in the judgment.

¶26

The afore request of the learned Standing Counsel for the 'KWA' is acceded to .

¶27

Resultantly, this Review Petition is closed; however, extending the time frame for compliance of the directions in the judgment by a further period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶30

anm

Kerala Water Authority Represented by Its Managing Director v. Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 602

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala Water Authority Represented by Its Managing Director v. Reena Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 602

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

Diya.S.L. Vs Director of General Education

Ananya Aravindan Vs Director of General Education

M. v Vishwanathan Vs Kerala Water Authority

Shivani S Nair Vs the Deputy Director of Education

Malavika.a.S. Vs Director of General Education

M/S. Malabar Constructions Vs State of Kerala