Allowed

Allen Wilson Thaliyath, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Mar 2024WP(C)/14639/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought release of a security deposit after the defect liability period expired. The court directed the respondent to release the amount to the petitioner individually upon submission of proof of proprietorship, rejecting the respondent's contention that payment could only be made to the firm's name.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach the third respondent with documents proving proprietorship for release of security deposit within two weeks.

Allen Wilson Thaliyath, Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 14639 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

ALLEN WILSON THALIYATH, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. PAUL WILSON, GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, THALIYATH HOUSE, KOTTAMAM, NEELESWARAM. P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 584.

¶6

BY ADVS. K.T.SHYAMKUMAR HARISH R. MENON K.N.ABHA ABHILASH AKBAR OASHIN LALAN K.S.SREEJA

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶9

2 THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULE TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

¶10

3 KITCO LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT FEMITH'S P.B NO. 4407, PUTHIYA ROAD, NH BY PASS, VENNALA , KOCHI 682 028, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

4 THE MANAGER, KITCO LTD, FEMITH'S P.B NO. 4407, PUTHIYA ROAD, NH BY PASS, VENNALA , KOCHI 682 028,

¶12

M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN

¶13

WP(C) NO. 14639 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT. LATHA THANKAPPAN FOR R2

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 14639 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the third respondent to release to him an amount of Rs.8,85,108/- which, he says, was deposited as Security Deposit for a work which he has now completed for them. He asserts that he is the proprietor and sole owner of the construction Firm, under the commercial style of “Thaliyath Construction”; and that all the amounts earlier released were done in his personal name. He thus prays that the third respondent be directed to do so, with respect to the afore Security Deposit also, asserting that the “defect liability period” for the work is now long over.

¶22

Interestingly, Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, appearing for the third respondent, did not contest the fact that the amount of Security Deposit is now liable to be returned because, the “defect liability period” of the work in question has expired. He, however, added that the same can be returned only to “Thaliyath Constructions” and not to the petitioner in his personal name.

¶23

Smt.Latha Thankappan – learned Government Pleader respondents 1 and 2, submitted that the Government has already permitted the third respondent to return the afore Security Deposit; and therefore, prayed that no further orders be issued

¶24

WP(C) NO. 14639 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

against her client.

¶27

It is thus obvious from the afore narrative that the only controversy now subsisting between the parties is as to, in whose name the above mentioned amount of Rs.8,85,108/- being admittedly the Security Deposit furnished by Thaliyath Constructions - should be returned. While the petitioner asserts that he is the owner and proprietor of the said Firm, the third respondent says that they can return it only to the entity which has entered into the contract, namely Ext.P3.

¶28

I am afraid that this is an unnecessary issue between the parties because Ext.P3 also says that M/s Thaliyath Constructions is owned by the petitioner herein. That being so, if he can establish that he is the sole proprietor of the said concern, one wonders why the amount claimed by him cannot be returned to him. This would cause no prejudice to the third respondent.

¶29

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition with the following manner:

¶30

(a) The petitioner is hereby granted liberty to approach the third respondent with an appropriate application for return

¶31

WP(C) NO. 14639 OF 2022

¶32

¶33

of the Security Deposit in his own name, supported by all documents to show that he is the sole proprietor of Thaliyath Constructions.

¶34

(b) On the afore being done, the third respondent will release the sum in question in the name of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date on which such application is made. If they want, they are also at liberty to obtain an Indemnity Bond from the petitioner, to the effect that no further claims from this amount will be entertained by any person, including Thaliyath Constructions; and that should such be impelled in future, he would exclusively be responsible for the same. The petitioner, of course, will, if called upon to do so, abide by the same.

¶35

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

stu

¶38

WP(C) NO. 14639 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14639/2022

¶41

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶42

Exhibit P1	TRUE DATED RESPO	COPY OF THE 1.9.2015 NDENT.	LETTER OF AWARD OF WORK ISSUED BY THE 3RD
Exhibit P2	TRUE THE FEDER	COPY OF THE B LETTER DATED AL BANK LTD,	ANK GUARANTEE ALONG WITH 29.9.2015 ISSUED BY PERUMBAVOOR.
Exhibit P3	TRUE 9.12.	COPY OF 2015.	THE AGREEMENT DATED
Exhibit P4	TRUE	COPY OF THE	COMPLETION CERTIFICATE
	DATED RESPO	3.12.2016 NDENT.	ISSUED BY THE 4TH
Exhibit P5	TRUE THE RESPO	COPY OF THE PETITIONER M NDENT.	RUNNING ACCOUNT BILL OF AINTAINED BY THE 3RD
Exhibit P6	TRUE ISSUE RESPO	COPY OF THE D BY THE CHI NDENT.	LETTER DATED 2.2.2018 EF ENGINEER TO THE IST
Exhibit P7	TRUE IN WP	COPY OF THE J C NO. 33461/2	UDGMENT DATED 21.12.2018 018.
Exhibit P8	TRUE ISSUE 13241	COPY OF TH D BY THE 2ND /13.	E ORDER DATED 8.4.2019 RESPONDENT ORDER NO. 82-
Exhibit P9	TRUE 22.3.	COPY OF THE N 2016 SWORN TO	OTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DATED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P10	TRUE ISSUE RESPO	COPY OF THE D BY THE 3RD NDENT.	LETTER DATED 8.4.2019 RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND
Exhibit P11	TRUE ISSUE	COPY OF THE D TO THE PETI	CHEQUE DATED 12.4.2019 TIONER.

¶43

WP(C) NO. 14639 OF 2022

¶44

¶45

Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY ISSUED BY RESPONDENT	OF THE LETTER DATED 4.10.2021 THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH .
Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED RESPONDENT	OF THE LETTER DATED 16.11.2021 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH .
Exhibit P14	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED RESPONDENT	OF THE LETTER DATED 9.12.2021 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH .
Exhibit P15	TRUE COPY 13.2.2017 INCOME TAX	OF THE TDS CERTIFICATE DATED PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER'S ACCOUNT.
Exhibit P16	TRUE COPY RULES PERT	OF FORM NO. 2DF UNDER THE KVAT AINING TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P17	TRUE COPY 10-2022 SU THE 2ND RE	OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11- BMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE SPONDENT.

Allen Wilson Thaliyath, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Allen Wilson Thaliyath, 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

Merlin K Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Mb Vs the State of Kerala

Vinitha Monteiro Vs State of Kerala

Devika Bipin, Vs the Bank Manager, Union Bank of India

A. Vijayalakshmi Krishna, Vs the State of Kerala

Sree Vidhyadhiraja Homoeopathic Medical College Vs Kesavendra Kumar IAS