The Managing Director vs Ubaidulla

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 28, 2025

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1279048

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1279048
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias
Decided On: Mar 28, 2025
Case Number: RP/406/2025
Subject: Commercial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Commercial

Key legal issue: Commercial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Managing Director

Respondent

Ubaidulla

Excerpt

.....this the 28th day of march, 2025 the review petition is filed to set aside the2. the respondent had filed the writ petitionto direct the review petitioner to refund rs.4,16,000/-, which was paid towards security deposit and emd for a recalled tender. by the judgment dated 21.02.2025, this court allowed the writ petition and directed the review petitioner to pay the amount within 60 days. subsequent to the judgment, the review petitioner found that the respondent had failed to pay rs.10,777/- towards gst for the licence. therefore, the said amount has to bededucted from the total amount payable to the respondent. hence, the review petitioner is only liable to pay rs.4,05,223 and not rs.4,16,000/- as directed in the judgment. hence, the judgment may be recalled. rp no. 406 of 2025 32. heard. the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.3. on a consideration of the facts and thematerials on record, i am of the view that the review petitioner is only liable to pay the admitted amount. therefore, there is no necessity to set aside the judgment, instead, the review petitioner is directed to pay only the admitted amount of rs.4,05,233/-. the review petition is disposed of with the above direction. this order shall be read in conjunction with the sd/- c.s.dias judge nab

Full Judgment

RP NO. 406 OF 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 406 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2025 IN WP(C) NO.4767 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDNETS NOS.1 AND 2: 1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 THE DISTRICT OFFICER K.S.R.T.C., OPP: K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND, PALAKKAD, PIN - 685584 BY ADV SRI.DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: UBAIDULLA AGED 40 YEARS S/O ABDUL HAMEED, PUTHUPALLISTREE, NURANI.P.O , PALAKKAD, PIN - 678004 BY SRI.T.K.SANDEEP THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RP NO. 406 OF 2025 2

ORDER

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025 The review petition is filed to set aside the

2. The respondent had filed the writ petition

to direct the review petitioner to refund Rs.4,16,000/-, which was paid towards security deposit and EMD for a recalled tender. By the judgment dated 21.02.2025, this court allowed the writ petition and directed the review petitioner to pay the amount within 60 days. Subsequent to the judgment, the review petitioner found that the respondent had failed to pay Rs.10,777/- towards GST for the licence. Therefore, the said amount has to be

deducted from the total amount payable to the respondent. Hence, the review petitioner is only liable to pay Rs.4,05,223 and not Rs.4,16,000/- as directed in the judgment. Hence, the judgment may be recalled. RP NO. 406 OF 2025 3

2. Heard. The learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

3. On a consideration of the facts and the

materials on record, I am of the view that the review petitioner is only liable to pay the admitted amount. Therefore, there is no necessity to set aside the judgment, instead, the review petitioner is directed to pay only the admitted amount of Rs.4,05,233/-. The review petition is disposed of with the above direction. This order shall be read in conjunction with the Sd/- C.S.DIAS JUDGE NAB

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2025 Same Parties The Managing Director vs Ubaidulla Same Subject Commercial Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias