Disposed

Larsen and Toubro Limited, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Dec 2023WPC/4968/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petitioner company sought directions to pay outstanding construction bills, declared payment inaction illegal, and claimed costs. The High Court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to pay undisputed bills after verification while reserving the petitioner's rights regarding other claims.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to pay undisputed bills after verification and allowing liberty to raise other grievances.

Larsen and Toubro Limited, Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (C) No. 4968 of 2023

¶5

“LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED”, having its Registered office at L & T House, Narottam Morarji Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai -400001 acting through its Project Manager namely Vibhore Mishra, aged-34 years, R/o L&T Construction Ltd., STP-03, R/o L&T Construction Ltd., STP-03, Sector-24, Near Aranyam Restaurant, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Housing & Environment Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Raipur Development Authority, through its Chief Executive Officer, Office at- Bhakt Matakarma Commercial Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Superintending Engineer, Raipur Development Authority, Office at- Bhakt Matakarma Commercial Complex, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Rathod, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate.

¶13

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Order On Board

20-12-2023

Heard.

This petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :-

¶18

¶19

10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the case for its kind perusal in the ends of justice.

¶20

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the RDA/Respondent No. 2 to pay petitioner Company a sum of Rupees 26.94 Crores (Rupees Twenty Six Crores and Ninety Four Lakhs) towards the outstanding Bills for Package No. 1 and a sum of Rupees 3,15,97,521 (Rupees Three Crores Fifteen Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Twenty One) towards the Outstanding Escalation Bills for Package No. 1 along with interest of 24% per annum till date of its realization.

¶21

10.3 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the impugned inaction of the respondent authority in making payment to the petitioner company against the outstanding bills is arbitrary, illegal and beyond the jurisdiction.

¶22

10.4 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner company.

¶23

10.5 Any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity and good conscience shall be granted to petitioner.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in pursuance of the agreement arrived at between the petitioner and respondents authorities, the petitioner has executed various construction work at the project of respondent namely “Kamal Vihar” i.e. Development Works of Kamal Vihar. Agreement has been executed between petitioner-Company and respondent No. 2 / Raipur Development Authority on 29.12.2011 for execution of aforesaid contract for value of a

¶25

¶26

sum of Rs.189.54 Crores (Rupees One Hundred Eighty Nine Crores and Fifty Four Lakhs only). It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Petitioner-company has performed all the works as per the agreement, to which no dispute whatsoever has been raised by the respondents authority till the handing over of the work site by Petitioner Company. Completion certificate in this regard has also been issued by respondent No. 2 – Raipur Development Authority in favour of the petitioner- Company. After completion of work, petitioner- Company has submitted all the bills against the work done by it for payment of bill amount as raised in this petition, but the same has not been paid by respondents authority, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petition may be disposed of directing respondents authorities to pay undisputed amount, which has been certified by respondents authorities within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, thereafter, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise his other claims before respondents authorities in accordance with law.

¶27

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3 would submit that respondents are ready to pay undisputed amount after due verification to the petitioner and other claims of the petitioner may be considered in accordance with contract agreement. He would further submit that if petitioner-Company feels aggrieved, then he may raise its grievance in accordance with Clause 28 of the Arbitration Agreement.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State has extended his support to the contention of learned counsel for respondents No. 2 & 3.

¶29

¶30

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents, particularly, limited prayer made by petitioner, this petition stands disposed of at this juncture directing respondents No. 2 & 3 to pay undisputed amount of bills submitted by the petitioner after verification of the same. The petitioner-Company is at liberty to raise his other grievance with regard to payment of other bill amount, if any, before authorities of respondents, which shall be considered by respondents No. 2 & 3 expeditiously and if the petitioner is left with any grievance, then he may take recourse to applicable law / Rules.

¶31

With the aforesaid observation & directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶34

Amit/

¶35

Larsen and Toubro Limited, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Larsen and Toubro Limited, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khilanand Kulhare Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Jay Sahu @ Jayendra Sahu Vs High Court of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Nirmala Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khoman Singh Vs Khilawan

Kartik Ram Vs Union of India

Larsen and Toubro Limited, Vs State of Chhattisgarh