HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., Vs. SHAJI MATHEW,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In I.A No. 13913/2010, this Court passed an order on 3rd November 2010 directing that Ext.P19 report will be treated as a certificate in terms of Article 10 of Ext.P15 agreement between the parties and the admitted amount due will be disbursed.

(2.) In this review petition, it is mainly contended that going by Ext.P19 only the dues to the Government can be recovered and that any amount due to the company, which is yet to be quantified, cannot be recovered from the amount to be disbursed to the writ Petitioner. It is stated that only if the Petitioner produces a certificate as required under Article 10 of the agreement then only the dues will be known and thereupon only the company can effect its recovery. Therefore, the counsel contends that this Court ought not have directed that instead of the certificate as specified under Article 10 of Ext.P15 the company should have acted upon Ext.P19 and disbursed the amounts due.

(3.) The possibility of any amount being due to the company, can be thought of provided the company had any complaint regarding the satisfactory nature of the completion of work by the Petitioner. It is seen from Ext.P19 report submitted by a committee constituted by the Company itself, that the committee has positively found that the Petitioner has satisfactorily completed the work in question within the extended contract period. This finding binds the Company. It is in view of the categorical finding of the Committee and also its recommendation that the company may consider whether the payment against running bills in respect of the works completed by the Petitioner can be made to him that the order was passed by this Court.