9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... request of EIEL, some amounts were directly paid to the petitioners is not sufficient to hold the DMRC liable for the balance payments. As per the terms of the agreements entered into between the petitioner and EIEL, the amounts due to the petitioners is to be paid by EIEL. For the default committed by the said Company, the DMRC cannot be made liable, unless the bills are cleared and a request for direct payment made by EIEL and accepted by the DMRC. The Apex Court has reiterated the settled position that the remedy for violation of a term of contract is not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Kurien E. Kalathil's case [ 2000 (7) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT ] , the Apex Court observed that a contract would not become sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel Sri. S. Easwaran submitted that even though the agreements were entered into between the petitioners and EIEL, the construction work and supply of materials undertaken by the petitioners being for the Kochi Metro Rail Project, the DMRC is under an obligation to ensure payments for the work done and materials supplied by the petitioners. Relying on the exhibits in W.P(C). No. 20568 of 2018, it is contended that at the request of Era-Ranken JV direct payment had been effected by the DMRC on earlier occasions. A further sum of ₹ 83,88,083/- being due towards the works done, the DMRC is bound to make the balance payment also. Exhibit P1 in W.P(C). No. 12463 of 2019 is a letter issued by the DMRC assuring direct payment for the materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of there being no privity of contract between the DMRC and the petitioners and of the writ petitions being not maintainable. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Others v. Bridge Roof Co. (India) Ltd. [AIR 1996 SC 3515], Kerala State Electricity Board and Others v. Kurien E. Kalathil and Others [AIR 2000 SC 2573] and National Highway Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises and Others [AIR 2003 SC 3823], in support of the contention that contractual disputes cannot be resolved in writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, there being no dispute with regard to the amounts due towards bills raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
