Northstone Builders and Developers Pvt Ltd v KITCO Ltd

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 30515 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** NORTHSTONE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD XVII/658, POST OFFICE ROAD, THRIPPUNITHURA, KOCHI - 682381., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. I. C. RAJU. BY ADV P.JINISH PAUL ## **RESPONDENT/S:** KITCO LTD FEMITH' S P. B. NO.4407, PUTHIYA ROAD, N H BYPASS, VENNALA, KOCHI - 682028, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.08.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).7574/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **TUESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 7574 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** NORTH STONE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. XVII/658, POST OFFICE ROAD, THRIPPUNITHURA, KOCHI-682381, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.I.C RAJU. BY ADVS. P.JINISH PAUL SNEHA VARGHESE ## **RESPONDENT/S:** KITCO LTD FEMITH'S P B NO.4407, PUTHIYA ROAD, N H BYPASS, VENNALA, KOCHI-682028, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.08.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).30515/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -3- ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 2[nd] day of August, 2022 The petitioner Company was awarded the construction work of the academic block for the Institute of Hospitality Management. The work was awarded through the KITCO, a technical consultancy organisation. Disputes arose between the contracting parties on various aspects like slow progress of work, extra items and additional quantities of work, cost overrun etc. This resulted in the respondent issuing a notice requiring the petitioner's bank to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. The proposed coercive action was challenged in W.P. (C) No.14169 of 2019 and encashment of the bank guarantee was interdicted through an interim order. Thereafter, respondent issued an order terminating the contract at the petitioner's risk and cost. That order was challenged in W.P.(C) No.18912 of 2019. In that writ petition also, an ## W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -4- interim order was granted staying further coercive action. Later, both writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn based on the submission of the Counsel, that the disputes were settled. In spite of the settlement, some of the disputes persisted and the respondent issued Exhibit P16 termination order dated 20.11.2021, which is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.30515 of 2021. 2. The other writ petition (W.P.(C) No.7574 of 2022) is filed praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay the amounts due towards various works executed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the bills pertaining to other works are not honoured citing the reason that dispute is pending in connection with the construction of academic block for the Institute of Hospitality Management. It is contended that there being no dispute with respect to the other bills, the respondent cannot refuse or delay the payment legitimately due to the petitioner. W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -5- 3. The respondent has filed counter affidavits in both cases, questioning the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that KITCO being an autonomous body, does not fall within the meaning of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and factual disputes pertaining to the contract cannot be resolved in a proceeding under Article 226. 4. When the writ petitions were taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for the respondent urged this Court to consider the question of maintainability first. Accordingly, maintainability was considered as the preliminary issue. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the IDBI holds major shares in KITCO, while the balance shares are held by some other public sector banks and the Government of Kerala. As such, the respondent squarely falls ## W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -6- within the meaning of 'State' under Article 12. Attention is drawn to Ext.P27 to contend that, going by the data pertaining to the respondent in public domain, the respondent is a Union Government Company. Further, Article 69 of the respondent's Articles of Association mandates that its annual returns, annual list of members, balance sheet and profit and loss account, should be placed before the Government of Kerala. This indicates Governmental control over the functioning of the respondent. It is contended that, even if Governmental interference is taken to be minimal, the respondent is exercising a public function and is dealing with public money, while providing infrastructural development to the State and its instrumentalities. Reliance is placed on the decision in _**Rajbir Surajbhan Singh**_ _**v. Chairman, Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, Mumbai [(2019) 14 SCC 189]**_ to contend that a writ petition under Article 226 will be W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -7- maintainable even against a private body, if it is discharging public function. It is contended that the contracts awarded to the petitioner results in infrastructural development of the State. Therefore, a public duty is cast on the respondent to ensure proper and timely completion of the constructions. For achieving this objective, the respondent should act in accordance with the terms of the contract and make payments in time. Viewed in that manner, award of contract and timely payment of bills are all intrinsically connected to the public duty exercised by the respondent. Even otherwise, the term 'other authorities' in Article 226 must receive a liberal meaning unlike the term 'State' in Article 12. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on the decision in _**Andi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.SJ.M.S.T v. V.R.Rudani [(1989) 2 SCC 691]**_ . 6. Refuting the contention that the dispute ## W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -8- in the writ petitions is with respect to the terms of a contract, it is submitted that no factual dispute is involved and documents produced by the petitioner are sufficient to grant the relief sought. Moreover, since the petitioner is seeking enforcement of a public duty bestowed on the respondent, the writ petitions are maintainable even if relationship between the parties are governed by contract. **==> picture [381 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** respondent put forth the following arguments; KITCO is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. No government or public sector undertaking holds 51% share in the KITCO. It is not a statutory body established under any specific statute. In _**K.J.Johnson v. Kerala**_ ## _**Industrial and Technical Consultancy and others**_ _**[ILR 1992 (1) Kerala 809],**_ this Court has categorically held that KITCO is not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. The reliefs ## W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -9- sought in the writ petition necessarily warrant adjudication of factual disputes pertaining to the terms of works contract. It is settled law that writ petitions seeking enforcement of contractual obligations shall not be entertained. 8. As rightly contended by the Counsel for the respondent, the question whether KITCO falls within the meaning of 'State' under Article 12 was considered and answered in _**K.J.Johnson** ._ Therein, the learned Single Judge observed that the Government of Kerala has only 3% share in KITCO and major share is held by the IDBI. It was held that, as far as the respondent is concerned, there is no state control and merely because nationalised banks are shareholders, it will not fall within the purview of Article 12. The contextually relevant observations/findings in the judgment are as follows; _“9. Majority of the share capital of_ _the respondent is not from the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the_ ## W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -10- _respondent. The functions of the respondent company are not subject to the directions of the Government The Memorandum and Articles of Association do not show that the concurrence or approval of the Government for making rules. and regulations are necessary. Accounts do not require scrutiny and satisfaction of the Government Auditing is not done by State agency Article 173 of the Memorandum and Articles of Association provides for the appointment of auditors to be decided by the Annual General Meeting of the Company The Government has only one representative in the Board of Directors. If any rule is made by the respondent company, no Governmental concurrence is envisaged. There is no effective governmental control so far as the respondent is concerned._ _10. Merely because nationalised banks have contributed to the share capital of the respondent it does not become an authority as provided under Article 12 of the Constitution Though the financial institutions who are the share-holders of the respondent by themselves are State instrumentalities, it cannot be said that the respondent company sponsored by them becomes an "authority" under Article 12 As the object of the respondent do not envisage governmental business or promote the_ -11- ## W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 _policies of the State and as the main source of income of the respondent is not derived from any grant either of the Central or State Government, it cannot be considered as an instrumentality or agency of Government. Though there cannot be any straight jacket formula to be applied to decided whether respondent would be an authority under Article 12 and though wide meaning can be given to the expression "other authorities", in the said Article really a cautious approach is necessary as it has to be borne in mind that interpretation of the word other 'authorities' cannot be stretched to include every autonomous body or company which has some connection with the Government, Even if it is assumed that there is some element of Governmental control or supervision, we cannot jump to the conclusion that it is an authority under Article 12 as the possibility of organisations, companies and institutions receiving financial assistance from Government in a welfare state is the order of the day. What is important is whether the respondent company is controlled to a large extent by the Government. The Memorandum and Articles of Association will not show that there is any such control.”_ I am in respectful agreement with the above ## W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -12- findings. KITCO is a Company offering consultancy services in architectural, engineering, technical, management and financial sectors. The services of the respondent is not confined to Government or governmental agencies alone. Merely because its Articles of Association provide for submission of annual returns, balance sheet and profit and loss Account to the State Government, that does not lead to an inference that the State is having deep and pervasive control over the affairs of the respondent. 9. The test for deciding whether a Corporation or Society is an instrumentality or agency of Government was laid down by the Apex Court in _**Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722]** ._ The contextually relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows; _“9. The tests for determining as to when a corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of Government may now be culled out from the judgment in the International Airport Authority case [(1979) 3 SCC 489] . These tests are not_ W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -13- _conclusive or clinching, but they are merely indicative indicia which have to be used with care and caution, because while stressing the necessity of a wide meaning to be placed on the expression “other authorities”, it must be realised that it should not be stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the expression. A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. We may summarise the relevant tests gathered from the decision in the International Airport Authority case [(1979) 3 SCC 489] as follows:_ _“(1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government. (SCC p. 507, para 14)_ _(2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with Governmental character. (SCC p. 508, para 15)_ _(3) It may also be a relevant factor ... whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected. (SCC p. 508, para 15)_ _(4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality. (SCC p. 508, para 15)_ _(5) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to Governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government. (SCC p. 509, para 16)_ _(6) ‘Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference’ of the corporation being an_ W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -14- _instrumentality or agency of Government.” (SCC p. 510, para 18)_ _If on a consideration of these relevant factors it is found that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government, it would, as pointed out in the International Airport Authority case [(1979) 3 SCC 489], be an “authority” and, therefore, ‘State’ within the meaning of the expression in Article 12.”_ 10. Later, the scope and ambit of the term 'other authorities', was explained by the Constitution Bench in _**Pradeepkumar Biswas v**_ ## _**Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others**_ _**[(2002) 5 SCC 111]**_ . The question therein was whether the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) falls within the meaning of 'State' or 'other authorities'. After elaborate consideration, the court summed up its conclusions at paragraph 98 of the judgment ## extracted hereunder; _**“98.** We sum up our conclusions as under:_ _(1) Simply by holding a legal entity to be an_ _instrumentality or agency of the State it does not necessarily become an authority within the meaning of “other authorities” in_ ## W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -15- _Article 12. To be an authority, the entity should have been created by a statute or under a statute and functioning with liability and obligations to the public. Further, the statute creating the entity should have vested that entity with power to make law or issue binding directions amounting to law within the meaning of Article 13(2) governing its relationship with other people or the affairs of other people — their rights, duties, liabilities or other legal relations. If created under a statute, then there must exist some other statute conferring on the entity such powers. In either case, it should have been entrusted with such functions as are governmental or closely associated therewith by being of public importance or being fundamental to the life of the people and hence governmental. Such authority would be the State, for, one who enjoys the powers or privileges of the State must also be subjected to limitations and obligations of the State. It is this strong statutory flavour and clear indicia of power — constitutional or statutory, and its potential or capability to act to the detriment of fundamental rights of the people, which makes it an authority; though in a given case, depending on the facts and circumstances, an authority may also be found_ W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -16- _to be an instrumentality or agency of the State and to that extent they may overlap. Tests 1, 2 and 4 in Ajay Hasia [Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] enable determination of governmental ownership or control. Tests 3, 5 and 6 are “functional” tests. The propounder of the tests himself has used the words suggesting relevancy of those tests for finding out if an entity was instrumentality or agency of the State. Unfortunately thereafter the tests were considered relevant for testing if an authority is the State and this fallacy has occurred because of difference between “instrumentality and agency” of the State and an “authority” having been lost sight of sub silentio, unconsciously and undeliberated. In our opinion, and keeping in view the meaning which “authority” carries, the question whether an entity is an “authority” cannot be answered by applying Ajay Hasia [Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] tests._ _(2) The tests laid down in Ajay Hasia case [Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 258] are relevant for the purpose of determining whether an entity is an instrumentality or agency of the State. Neither all the_ W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -17- _tests are required to be answered in the positive nor a positive answer to one or two tests would suffice. It will depend upon a combination of one or more of the relevant factors depending upon the essentiality and overwhelming nature of such factors in identifying the real source of governing power, if need be by removing the mask or piercing the veil disguising the entity concerned. When an entity has an independent legal existence, before it is held to be the State, the person alleging it to be so must satisfy the court of brooding presence of the Government or deep and pervasive control of the Government so as to hold it to be an instrumentality or agency of the State.”_ No doubt, in _**Andi Mukta Sadguru,**_ the Apex Court held that Article 12 is relevant only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32, while Article 226 confers power on the High courts to issue writ for enforcement of fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights. It was also held that the words 'any person' or 'authority' used in Article 226 cannot be confined to statutory authorities and W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -18- instrumentalities of the State and may take in any other person or body performing public duty. 11. In the case at hand, what is sought to be enforced is an alleged breach of contractual obligation. The legal position that no writ of mandamus can be issued for enforcement of contractual obligation, is covered by plethora of decisions, including _**Tata Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651** and_ _**Silpi Constructions**_ _**Contractors v. Union of India [(2020) 16 SCC**_ _**489].**_ The interference is minimal even in cases where one of the contracting parties is a body falling within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Of course, Constitutional Courts being the guardians of fundamental rights, are duty bound to intervene when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, _mala fides_ and bias. At the same time, courts should also exercise restraint while exercising the powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial ## W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -19- matters. 12. Applying the tests and principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions, I find no justifiable reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 for granting the reliefs sought in these writ petitions. The challenge against maintainability is therefore upheld and the writ petitions are dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to approach the civil court or such other proper forum. If action in that regard is taken by the petitioner, it can seek exclusion of the period during which the writ petitions were pending before this Court, for computing the period of limitation. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN** **JUDGE** Scl/ _vgs_ W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -20- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30515/2021** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|PETITIONER EXHIBITS| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|THE TRUE COPY OF WORK ORDER DATED| ||16.03.2012.| |Exhibit P2|THE TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED| ||31.03.2012.| |Exhibit P3|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTERS DATED| ||10.01.2013, 21.01.2013 & 09.02.2013| ||SENT BY THE PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P4|THE TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF JOINT| ||MEETING HELD ON 26.08.2014.| |Exhibit P5|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||20.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P6|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||14.06.2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P7|THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER| ||DATED 21.05.2019 IN WP(C) 14169/2019.| |Exhibit P8|THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED| ||BY THE RESPONDENT IN WP(C) 14169/2019.| |Exhibit P9|THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT| ||FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN WP(C)| ||14169/2019.| |Exhibit P10|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||15.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P11|THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER| ||DATED 11.07.2019 IN WP(C) 18912/2019.| |Exhibit P12|THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT| ||DATED 01.08.2019 IN WP(C) 14169/2019 &| ||WP(C) 18912/2019.| |Exhibit P13|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ||15.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P14|THE TRUE COPY OF THE RA BILL DATED| ||30.08.2019 RAISED BY THE RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P15|THE TABLE SHOWING THE TOTAL AMOUNT| ||PAYABLE BY THE RESPONDENT IN VARIOUS| ||WORKS.| |Exhibit P16|THE TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION ORDER| ||DATED 20.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P17|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED| ## W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -21- ||9.2.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT| |---|---| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit R1(A)|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF| ||MEASUREMENT BOOK OF 2019 AS CERTIFIED| ||BY THE PETITIONER ON 30-03-2002.| |Exhibit R1(B)|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE| ||RUNNING ACCOUNT BILL AND PART DATED| ||10-09-2013.| |Exhibit R1(C)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16-05-| ||2017 AND UNDERTAKING DATED 15-05-2017| ||ALONG WITH STATEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR| ||AN AMOUNT RS. 1,30,00,000/-.| |Exhibit R1(D)|TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE| ||PAYMENT EFFECTED BY THE RESPONDENT TO| ||THE PETITIONER AND OTHER AGENCIES| ||ENGAGED BY THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT| ||TO THE SUBJECT WORK.| |Exhibit R1(E)|TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL CONDITIONS OF| ||CONTRACT.| |Exhibit R1(F)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18-01-| ||2013 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT. (WITHOUT| ||ENCLOSURES)| |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit R1(G)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25-01-| ||2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.| ||(WITHOUT ENCLOSURES)| |Exhibit R1(H)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10-02-| ||2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.| ||(WITHOUT ENCLOSURES)| |Exhibit R1(I)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-03-| ||2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.| ||(WITHOUT ENCLOSURES)| |Exhibit R1(J)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27-05-| ||2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.| ||(WITHOUT ENCLOSURES)| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit R1(K)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19-12-| ||2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.| ||(WITHOUT ENCLOSURES)| |Exhibit R1(L)|TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED| ||15-02-2016 ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER| ||TO THE RESPONDENT.| ## W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -22- PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(M) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF RUNNING ACCOUNT BILL 20 AND PART DATED 18-01-2016. |PETITIONER EXHIBITS<br>Exhibit R1(M)<br>TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF<br>RUNNING ACCOUNT BILL 20 AND PART DATE<br>18-01-2016.|PETITIONER EXHIBITS<br>Exhibit R1(M)<br>TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF<br>RUNNING ACCOUNT BILL 20 AND PART DATE<br>18-01-2016.| |---|---| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|| |Exhibit R1(N)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19-02-| ||2019 ISSUED BY SIHM TO RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit R1(O)|TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DATED 22-11-| ||2014.| |Exhibit R1(P)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-12-| ||2015 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.| |Exhibit R1(Q)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18-07-| ||2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit R1(R)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16-08-| ||2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit R1(S)|TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 31-08-| ||2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit R1(T)|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16-09-| ||2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit R1(U)|TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 18-09-| ||2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit R1(V)|TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 20-09-| ||2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit R1(W)|TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 23-09-| ||2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit R1(X)|TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 24-09-| ||2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit R1(Y)|TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 26-09-| ||2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit R1(Z)|TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 28-09-| ||2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Exhibit R1(AA)|TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 30-09-| W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -23- 2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit R1(AB) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 01-102019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit R1(AC) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 03-102019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit R1(AD) TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 04-102019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit R1(AE) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23-082019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO SIHM. Exhibit R1(AF) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23-082019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM. Exhibit R1(AG) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-08- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-082021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF TOURISM DIRECTORATE. Exhibit R1(AH) Exhibit R1(AI) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16-052019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 22-07-2016 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF SIB. Exhibit R1(AJ) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03-082021 ADDRESSED BY SIB TO RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24-012022 ADDRESSED BY RESPONDENT TO SIB. Exhibit R1(AK) PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(AL) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07-052019 ADDRESSED BY SIHM TO RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(AM) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 08-04-2019 AS REFERRED IN THE LETTER DATED 07-5-2019. Exhibit R1(AN) TRUE COPY OF THE ESTIMATE FOR THE RECTIFICATION WORK. Exhibit R1(AO) TRUE COPY OF THE ESTIMATE FOR THE REMAINING WORK TO BE COMPLETE. W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -24- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7574/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |Exhibit P1|THE TABLE SHOWING THE DESCRIPTION OF| |---|---| ||PENDING AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE| ||RESPONDENT IN VARIOUS WORKS.| |Exhibit P2|THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF AWARD| ||OF WORK DATED 16.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P3|THE TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED| ||25.02.2013.| |Exhibit P4|THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF RA| ||BILL DATED 10.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE| ||RESPONDENT .| |Exhibit P5|THE TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED| ||25.02.2013 FOR THE CIVIL WORKS OF| ||KOTTAPPURAM FORT PREMISES ISSUED BY| ||THE RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P6|THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF RA| ||BILL DATED 15.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE| ||RESPONDENT SHOWING THE PENDING| ||PAYMENT.| |Exhibit P7|THE TRUE COPY OF WORK ORDER DATED| ||25.02.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P8|THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF RA| ||BILL DATED 31.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P9|THE TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED| ||25.07.2014 FOR THE ELECTRICAL WORKS| ||ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P10|THE TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED| ||08.04.2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P11|THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF| ||RA BILL DATED 06.10.2012 AND| ||18.06.2012.| |Exhibit P12|THE TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED| ||02.04.2014 IS ISSUED BY THE| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P13|THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF RA| ||BILL DATED 19.07.2014 ISSUED BY THE| ||RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P14|THE TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED| ## W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -25- ||25.02.2012 IS ISSUED BY THE| |---|---| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P15|THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF RA| ||BILL DATED08.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P16|THE TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED| ||16.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P17|TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF RA BILL| ||DATED 30.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P18|TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED| ||21.08.2008 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P19|TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED| ||17.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P20|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF RA| ||BILL DATED 28.03.2015 AND 29.04.2015 ,| ||02.07.2015, 06.08.2015 AND 23.03.2016| ||ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT SHOWING THE| ||PENDING PAYMENT.| |Exhibit P21|THE TRUE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED| ||25.05.2013 IS ISSUED BY THE| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P22|THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF RA| ||BILL DATED 07.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P23|THE TRUE COPY OF WORK ORDER DATED| ||01.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P24|THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF RA| ||BILL DATED 30.06.2017 AND 03.12.2016| ||ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT SHOWING THE| ||PENDING PAYMENT.| |Exhibit P25|THE TRUE COPIES OF THE REQUEST LETTERS| ||DATED 03.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE| ||PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P26|TRUE COPY OF THE S.13 (8) NOTICE DATED| ||23/02/2022 ISSUED BY THE SOUTH INDIAN| ||BANK| |Exhibit P27|THE TRUE COPY OF THE MASTER DATA OF| ||THE RESPONDENT COMPANY AVAILABLE IN| ||THE PUBLIC DOMAIN| |Exhibit P28|THE TRUE COPY OF THE WEBPAGE OF THE| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P29|THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ARTICLES OF| W.P.(C) Nos.30515/2021 & 7574/2022 -26- ASSOCIATION OF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 22/07/2016 EXECUTED BY PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF SIB Exhibit R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/08/2021 ADDRESSED TO SIB TO RESPONDENT Exhibit R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/01/2022 ADDRESSED BY RESPONDENT TO SIB Exhibit R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18/01/2019 ADDRESSED BY RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER