Back
2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 73507
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, J
ULIKKAL STONE CRUSHER – Appellant
Versus
THE PROJECT DIRECTOR , – Respondent
WP(C)/24249/2019
SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM), SRI.J.OM PRAKASH, SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT, SRI.T.G.MANOJ
A party's right to be heard must not be bypassed, especially in contract disputes concerning appropriation of dues.
Headnote:
Contract - Authority of Sub-Contractor - for Appropriation - The court highlighted the contract's provisions and the parties' obligations, concluding that the first respondent must review the petitioner's representation.
Fact of the Case:
A contractor was engaged for specialized work, resulting in an outstanding sum due. The petitioner contended that the sums owed should not have been appropriated by the first respondent after the contractor breached the agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court decided to direct the first respondent to address the petitioner's representation, ensuring a hearing is provided. It highlighted the need for proper consideration of the petitioner's claims for payment.
Issues: Whether the first respondent appropriated the petitioner's outstanding payment without proper consideration of their claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard regarding their dues before any decision on appropriation is finalized.
Final Decision: The court directed the first respondent to decide on the petitioner's representation within one month.
J U D G M E N T
The second respondent is a contractor. The first respondent has awarded a work to the second respondent. The contract entered into between respondents 1 and 2 confers authority on the second respondent to get the specialized works covered by the contract executed through sub- contractors. It is the case of the petitioner that they were engaged by the second respondent for getting a specialized part of the work executed, and a sum of Rs.1,21,17,820/- is due to them in respect of the same from the first respondent. It is stated by the petitioner that since the second respondent has committed breach of the terms of the contract, the award was terminated and the amounts payable to them from the first respondent has been appropriated towards the loss caused to the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the amount payable to the petitioner was also appropriated. It is the case of the petitioner that the amounts due to them should not have been appropriated by the first respondent. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent. The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when this matter is taken up, was for a direction to the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 representation.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4 representation, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
YKB APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 25.4.2015 ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF MATERIALS SUPPLIED SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 26.4.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
10.6.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL //TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE YKB
