Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
CHACKO JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contractor's claims and procedural context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on procedural discrepancies. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. ruling on the need for fair process in penalty assessment. (Para 9 , 11 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
“(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P4 order, to the extent directing to impose penalty, for the portion of the work left undone;
(ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exts.P8 and P15 orders of the 1st respondent;
(iii) issue any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the directions issued in Ext.P4 order that is to terminate the agreement without imposing risk and cost upon the petitioner and to recover penalty, are contradicting each other and against the letter and spirit of Exts. P2, P3 and P3(a) proceedings of the respondents 4 to 2;
(iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to disburse the admitted bill amount of Rs.23,24,892/-, as detailed
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
