Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MR. JULIE GEORGE, D/O. GEORGE versus COCHIN CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MR. JULIE GEORGE, D/O. GEORGE v. COCHIN CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 29691 of 2006(I) [2007] RD-KL 4085 (23 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 29691 of 2006(I)

1. MR. JULIE GEORGE, D/O. GEORGE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. COCHIN CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.MADHU

For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :23/02/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C) No.29691 OF 2006 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 23rd FEBRUARY, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Ext.P10 notice issued by the Corporation directing the petitioner who is the contractor for the conduct of the Corporation's comfort station at Ernakulam market to pay the defaulted monthly payments for the months of September and October together with penal interest is under challenge. The petitioner has a grievance that even though it was the obligation of the Corporation to keep the comfort station under proper repair, in spite of several representations such Exts.P4, P8 and P9, the Corporation has not attended to the repairs at all.

2. Heard Sri.K.P.Madhu, counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Anand, counsel for the Corporation.

3. It is conceded before me that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the amounts demanded by the Corporation under Ext.P10 was paid by the petitioner and therefore there is no immediate threat from the Corporation of terminating the contract. But counsel for the petitioner submits that it was not all legal on the part of the Corporation to have collected penal interest from the petitioner when the Corporation was retaining excess amounts (three months' charges) WP(C)N0.29691 of 2006 as advance apart from the bank guarantee of Rs.1 lakh furnished by the petitioner.

4. I do not propose to decide the issue of the petitioner's liability to pay penal interest. Ext.P9 appears to be a comprehensive representation. The Corporation will consider Ext.P9 in the light of the various grounds raised in the Writ Petition, hear the petitioner and take a decision on Ext.P9. Decision as directed above will be taken by the Corporation within two months of receiving copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

(PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl WP(C)N0.29691 of 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.