Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.M.MANOJ
Kaikara Construction Company – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Rep. By The Secretary To Government, Public Works Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging payment orders and contract obligations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. claims of coercion and undue influence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. arguments against maintainability of the writ petition. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. legality of agreements formed under duress. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. finality of the arbitration award and its binding nature. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. validity of the agreement signed with knowledge. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT :
P.M. Manoj, J.
This writ petition was preferred challenging Exts.P13 and P14 orders i.e., the orders passed by the Government directing payment of the dues to the petitioner's company with 9% interest as per the Rules, instead of the awarded interest of 12%. Ext.P14 is the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Project Director KSTP, which is challenged on the ground that it was signed under undue influence and coercion.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the company was awarded the contract work of K.S.T.P - RMC-27 periodic renewal of Thiruvananthapuram – Ponmudi Road from km.0/000 to km 39/000 included in agreement No.21/KSTP/PWD/2004-05 dated 22.12.2004 valued Rs.11,81,15,085/-, which
A party cannot challenge a settlement agreement on grounds of coercion unless substantial evidence proves it was signed involuntarily; arbitration awards remain binding unless set aside by due legal ....
Claims raised after acceptance of payments are considered waived if not disputed timely, and allegations of coercion were deemed unfounded by the arbitrator.
The court affirmed that a contract signed under undue influence or coercion is unenforceable, emphasizing the necessity for clear evidence and valid agreement in cases of settlement.
A bald plea of fraud, coercion, duress, or undue influence is not enough to undo settlement agreements.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal must be based on evidence and material on record, and the Court will not interfere with the award unless....
The court held that the respondent's initiation of the execution of the supplementary agreement precluded the argument of coercion, and that the claims were not barred by limitation.
The court affirmed the limited scope of review under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing respect for arbitral awards unless stark violations of public policy or procedural....
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
