Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ziyad Rahman A.A., J
Vijay Construction – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contract delays due to covid and material scarcity; field officers recommended extension. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. non-communication of extension led to termination; prior writs set aside orders. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. penalty imposed; re-tender at high cost; counter averments on extensions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. petitioner's challenge to termination based on delayed extension. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. delayed uncommunicated extension invalidates termination; direct further extension. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.34063/2025 & 19728/2024]...
Both these writ petitions are filed by the very same petitioner and the issues involved in these writ petitions are touching upon the termination of contract entered into between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein. W.P(C)No.19728 of 2024 is petitioner challenging Ext.P17 order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent, by which, the termination of the contract entered into between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent was ordered. W.P(C)No.34063 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner challenging Exts.P25 and P26. Ext.P25 order passed by the Government and Ext.P26 consequential order was passed by the Chief Engineer. (W
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
