Disposed¶27

Shaikh Umar Farook Makbul by Shaikh Umar Farook Makbul v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Apr 2025WP/1183/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC WP 1183/2025 (decided 12-06-2025): recovery of undisputed contractual dues of Rs.7,22,704/- by proprietary-concern contractor under work order dated 30-07-2024 following tender notice dated 20-02-2024; completion certificate dated 23-09-2024 not disputed by State respondents (officers of Kurla PWD and ESIS present); direction to pay within six weeks with 6% interest on default; useful on prompt payment of admitted bills of State instrumentalities.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent nos. 2 to 6 to pay Rs.7,22,704/- to the petitioner within an outer limit of six weeks; on failure, the amount to carry interest at 6% from the date it became due till payment. ¶27

Shaikh Umar Farook Makbul by Shaikh Umar Farook Makbul vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

9-WP-1183-2025.doc

¶2

Pdp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1183 OF 2025

¶5

Shaikh Umar Farook Makbul

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶9

Mr. M. H. I. Patel i/by Mr. Imtiyaz Patel for petitioner. Smt. Prachi Tatake, Addl. Govt. Pleader with Smt. Manisha Gawade, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 6 – State. Mr. R. T. Sonar & Mr. Rajendra Tukaram Sonar, Sub Divisional Officer, Kurla PWD, present.

¶10

Mr. Ramesh Trimukhe, SD Officer, ESIS, present.

¶11

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶12

DATE: 12^th JUNE, 2025

¶13

ORAL ORDER [Per Chief Justice]:

¶14

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.

¶15

2. The petitioner is a proprietor of a registered Proprietary Concern and engaged into the construction and repair sector. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondent nos. 2 to 6 to make payment of sum of Rs.7,22,704/- for the work executed by the petitioner in compliance of the work order dated 30^th July, 2024.

¶16

3. Facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition, briefly stated, are that the Executive Engineer issued tender

¶17

¶18

9-WP-1183-2025.doc

¶19

notice on 20^th February, 2024. The petitioner submitted his bid and was declared as successful bidder. The work order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 30^th July, 2024. The petitioner successfully completed the work. The work completion certificate was issued to the petitioner on 23^rd September, 2024.

¶20

4. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that despite completion of the work and issuance of work completion certificate, payment of sum of Rs.7,22,704/-, which is due and payable to the petitioner has not been paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to the amount in question as the petitioner has successfully executed the work.

¶21

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the respondents do not dispute that the petitioner has successfully completed the work and the work completion certificate was issued to the petitioner on 23^rd September, 2024.

¶22

6. We have considered the rival submissions made on both the sides. Admittedly, the petitioner has successfully executed the work and the work completion certificate has been issued to the petitioner on 23^rd September, 2024. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to payment of the admitted amount which has been withheld without any rhyme or reason.

¶23

7. We, therefore, direct that the respondents to make payment of the aforesaid amount to the petitioner within an outer limit of six weeks. It is made clear that in case the

¶24

¶25

9-WP-1183-2025.doc

¶26

aforesaid amount is not paid within the outer limit of six weeks, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date it became due till the said amount is paid.

¶27

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶28

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶29

Digitally
signed by
PRAVIN
PRAVIN DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT Date:
2025.06.12
19:31:23
+0530

¶30

Shaikh Umar Farook Makbul by Shaikh Umar Farook Makbul v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Umar Farook Makbul by Shaikh Umar Farook Makbul v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajkumar Shishram Bugalia vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Eskag Sanjeevani Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary for Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Laxman Narayan Zagade and Ors. vs Competent Aurhtority and District Deputy Registrar and Ors.

Beena Varghese vs Dy Chief Labour Commissioner Mumbai

Smt Prabhavati Jagdish Patil Thr. Poa Shri Ravindra J. Patil vs Smt. Bhimabai Shankar Thakur and Ors.

M/S. Stle Evershine Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.