SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 34

KERALA HIGH COURT
J. B. Koshy, J
SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER v. HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD. AND ANOTHER


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. X, Ms. Y
For the Respondents: Mr. S. N. Poti

1 When the writ petition came up for admission yesterday. I was inclined to admit the Original Petition and to issue notice to the respondents to ascertain their views in the light of the averments made in the Original Petition. But I was not inclined to grant an order of stay. But subsequently, in the course of the arguments for admission, Mr. S. N. Poti submitted that he is appearing for the 1st respondent, and can make available the relevant files. Petitioner's counsel submitted that if the Original Petition is admitted and posted to a subsequent date without granting an interim order, the Original Petition itself will become infructuous, as the ship with cargo is arriving at Cochin Port today, i. e. 20th February 1991. Hence, J posted the Original Petition for admission today with the understanding that the 1st respondent also will be heard.

2 The prayer in the writ petition is to set asided the award of contract pursuant to Ext. P-1 based on revisions of tender rates effected subsequent to 3 p. m. on 7th February 1991. There is also a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to finalise the contract only after affording a fair and equal opportunity to rev




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top