Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (2.06 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Kerala And Ors. vs T.N. Anil on 21 December, 2001

The Chadayamangalam Grama Panchayath vs Rajan K on 14 November, 2007

(6). Adv. Sri. B.Mohan Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit, firstly, that, the learned Judge was not justified in granting the interim prayer to the petitioner, since the interim prayer and the main prayer in the writ petition were one and the same. Apart from that, the learned counsel would submit that, the learned Judge, while issuing the interim prayer and confirming the interim prayer while disposing of the writ petition, has not applied the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Anil (2002 (1) KLT 371 (FB).
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - H L Dattu - Full Document

M/S.Crescent Construction Company vs The State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2016

"Guided by the salutory principles in the subject matter and as particularly laid down by the Supreme Court, and applying the same on the issue referred to us, it has to be held that it cannot be said in absolute terms that a Writ Petition is not maintainable in contractual matters including where the Contractors seek enforcement of the obligation on the part of the State to pay the bill amounts admitted by the State. Though couched in different terms, all the decisions referred by us above lead to the said conclusion. All the activities of the State are in public interest and for public good. There is public law element in contracts where State is a party, and it naturally follows that there is public duty. And above all, any State action is liable to be tested on the touchstone of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Essentially, the only limitation of the High Court is the self imposed restriction. A few relevant factors in exercising the self imposed limitations under Art.226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of payment of Contractors' bills are:
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A Thomas - Full Document

M.Aboobakkar vs Agali Grama Panchayth on 21 August, 2006

9. The scope for interference in judicial review in matters arising out of the contractual obligations is now well settled by judicial rulings. A Full Bench of this Court in the case State of Kerala v. Anil reported in 2002 (1) KLT 317 (FB), has clearly held therein that it cannot be said in absolute terms that a Writ Petition is not maintainable in contractual matters including where the contractors seek enforcement of the obligation on the part of the State to pay the bill amounts admitted by the State. All the activities of the State are in public interest and for public good. Therefore, there is public law element in contracts where State is a party and it naturally follows that there is public duty. Above all, any State action in that regard is liable to be tested on the touchstone of Art.14 of the Constitution of India.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S.Ghv-Ekk (Joint Venture) vs The State Of Kerala on 5 May, 2014

Petitioner has entered into Ext. P1 agreement for upgradation of a road. According to the petitioner, the project was being financed by world bank and therefore, there is no difficulty for payment to be effected. According to the petitioner, other contractors doing similar works are paid, overlooking petitioner's priority and against the principle of 'first done first paid' as held by this Court in State of Kerala v. Anil [2002 (1) KLT 371 (FB)]. During the course of the work, a part bill was raised by the petitioner and according to the petitioner, the certified bill alone will come to Rs. 68 Crores and respondents are duty bound to release the bill amount to the petitioner. It is in this background seeking appropriate directions, this writ petition is filed.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S. Suresh vs The Manager, The Kerala State Financial ... on 30 May, 2002

2. When there is a statutory contract if there is violation by one among the parties thereto, the other party can approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce the contract. The petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Goel, 2001 (2) SCC 160 : (AIR 2001 SC 549) and a Full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Anil, (2002) 1 Ker LT 371 : (AIR 2002 Ker 160). Therefore, this writ petition is maintainable for enforcement of that statutory contract and to direct the other party to perform their part in terms of that contract, the petitioner submits.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - K A Gafoor - Full Document

P.A.Varkey vs The District Collector on 5 February, 2007

2. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent-Block Development Officer wherein it is contended that the delay in payment of the works is not due to the inaction from the 2nd respondent's office but is due to the inaction of the 1st petitioner in submitting the necessary papers to the 2nd respondent after obtaining the same from the 3rd respondent and that if any payment is made to the 1st petitioner, it will amount to payment out of seniority which will tantamount to violating the judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Anil (2002 (1) KLT 371).
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P C Kuriakose - Full Document

Corporation Of Cochin vs K.A.Abdul Kareem on 20 November, 2014

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the appeal contended that the Corporation has already prepared the contractor's work bill up to 31.3.2013. As on 30.11.2014 the Corporation is making endeavour for payment as per the said seniority list. The petitioner's name finds place in the list at serial No.197,198, 217 and 219. He further submits that the amount W.A. No. 1871/14 2 claimed under the bill is not admitted by the Corporation and those issues are yet to be adjudicated. He has referred to the judgment reported in State of Kerala v. Anil [2002(1) KLT 371 (F.B)] wherein the Full Bench has noted the directions for making payment of the bills on first done first basis.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document
1