Kerala High Court
WA/2147/2012 of P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs THE CHAIRMAN/DIRECTOR OF KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION(KINFRA) on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 WA.No. 2147 of 2012 () IN WPC/582/2012 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
WA.No. 2147 of 2012 () IN WPC/582/2012 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.582/2012 DATED 03-10-2012---------- APPELLANT/PETITIONER :
----------------------
P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. PADMANABHAN NAIR, LAKSHMI NIVAS, TC 36/710
PERUMTHANNI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
SRI.P.BIJIMON
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 1 :
-------------------------
1. THE CHAIRMAN/DIRECTOR OF KERALA INDUSTRIAL
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (KINFRA)
IMC SOCIETY, ITI(W), KAZHAKKUTTAM
PIN-695 582.
2. THE EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY/PRINCIPAL IMC SOCIETY, ITI(W), KAZHAKKUTTAM-695 582.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-12-2012, THECOURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
VK
Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K. Vinod Chandran, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 2147 OF 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
Vinod Chandran, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner/appellant is a contractor who sought a direction from the learned Single Judge for paymentof amounts towards the final bill together with interest.
2. The learned Single Judge having dealt with the issue in detail found that the issue raised in the writ petition iswith respect to a contract entered into by the appellant withthe respondents. It was also noticed from the pleadings thatthere is a dispute between the parties and the claim of theappellant is objected to by the respondents. Having noticedthat there is also an arbitration clause in the agreement, whichthe petitioner is entitled to invoke, the learned Single Judgedismissed the writ petition. However, the remedy of thepetitioner before the arbitrator was left open and it was alsoobserved that the release of the retention amounts shall beconsidered, if a representation is filed before the authorities.
WA No. 2147 of 2012
-:2:-
3. Before this Court the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the remedy by way of arbitration hasalready been invoked and he confines the prayer to the release ofretention amounts. We are of the opinion that the learned SingleJudge has rightly found that it is a purely contractual matter andthe writ proceedings cannot be invoked. There are no sufficientgrounds to entertain the writ appeal. Hence the writ appeal isdismissed.
However, it is made clear that if the respondents arewilling to pay the retention amounts irrespective of the objectionsraised earlier, the dismissal of the writ petition and writ appealshall not stand in the way of disbursal of such amounts. With theabove observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Manjula Chellur,
Chief Justice.
K. Vinod Chandran,
Judge.
ttb/31/12