Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.SUJATHA
Keller Ground Engineering India Private Limited, Represented By Its Authorized Representative, Mr. M. Ganesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Its Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on polavaram irrigation project and subcontractor activities. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. dispute over payments and contractual obligations. (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. arguments presented by both parties regarding payment liabilities. (Para 12 , 16) |
| 4. court's analysis on the validity of claims and obligations post-termination of agreement. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. clarification on continuing payment obligations despite contract termination. (Para 24 , 26) |
| 6. conclusion directing payment to the petitioner. (Para 28) |
ORDER :
V. SUJATHA, J.
This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
“….to issue a writ, direction, or order more so in the nature of a writ of mandamus- (a)declaring that the action of Respondent 1, the Water Resources Department of the State of Andhra Pradesh (WRD) and Respondent 2, the Chief Engineer, WRD, of withholding the amount due and payable to the Petitioner towards the jet grouting, ECPT and vibro compaction works completed at the Polavaram Irrigation Project is manifestly arbitrary, unlawful and violates the Petitioner's rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution o
The court ruled that a subcontractor is entitled to payment for completed works despite the termination of the main contract, emphasizing the obligations of the contracting authority to honor such pa....
Withholding of balance amounts by the Irrigation Department after completion of the work and lapse of a decade without valid reasons is illegal and arbitrary, and the petitioners are entitled to paym....
In cases involving disputed questions of fact and pure contractual matters, the extraordinary remedy of writ under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be invoked. Payment disputes in....
The entitlement of contractors for completed work and the responsibility of authorities for timely payment.
The Court determined that contractual disputes involving factual questions requiring evidence must be resolved outside the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
