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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5342

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
M/S. HYDRO ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 41809 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ANIL GEORGE, SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY, SMT.SMITHA PHILIPOSE, SHRI.ASHIK TOM, SHRI.ADARSH K., SHRI.ALEX KEVIN GEORGE
For the Respondents: SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE

The court directed the authority to decide on the defect liability period following appropriate hearings, ensuring compliance with legal standards.

Headnote:The judgment addresses the defect liability period imposed on the petitioner, a contractor, which is set at five years under Ext.P1, contrary to established norms of two years. The court has mandated the second respondent to review the pending representation (Ext.P4) and issue a decision in accordance with law within two months after hearing the petitioner. The crux of the dispute revolves around the acceptable duration of defect liability as per contractual agreements.

Table of Content
1. defect liability period disagreement. (Para 1)
2. court mandates authority decision on representation. (Para 2)

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a registered contractor and is aggrieved by the defect liability period, which is fixed as five years, in respect of work covered as per Ext.P1 letter of acceptance. According to the petitioner, as per the standard terms, the defect liability period has to be for a period of two years and in variation from the same, five years have been imposed in this case. Highlighting the grievance of the petitioner, Ext.P4 representation is submitted, which is now pending before the 2nd respondent. The limited relief sought by the petitioner is to direct the 2nd respondent to pass orders on the same, after hearing the petitioner.

2. A counter affidavit is already submitted by the respondents in response to the averments contained in the writ petition.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition. Accordingly it is ordered that, the 2nd respondent shall take up Ext.P4 representation and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

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 Back to top