Dismissed

Ms Vicky Construction through Its Proprietor Kalim Akhtar v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Jharkhand HC23 Jan 2023WPC/3302/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought payment for incomplete construction work. As the matter involved a contractual dispute with serious disagreement over the quantum of work, the High Court declared it not inclined to entertain the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought; work out remedy in accordance with law.

Ms Vicky Construction through Its… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 3302 of 2018

¶3

M/s. Vicky Construction through its Proprietor Kalim Akhtar –Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Ranchi

¶6

The Principal Secretary, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶7

The Engineer-in-chief, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, Building Division Circle-2, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division, Govt. of Jharkhand, District-Gumla

¶10

The Assistant Engineer, Building Construction Department, Building Division, Govt. of Jharkhand, District-Gumla

¶11

The District Commandant, Home Guard, Gumla -Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶14

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, Advocate For the Resp. –State : Mr. Vineet Prakash, A.C to S.C.-IV

¶15

¶16

09/23.01.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

The present writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to pay Rs. 29,75,981/- for construction of work of C-Type quarter, one Block of 2 Unit, for Home Guard Institute at Gumla, in the year 2012-13 along with statutory interest.

¶18

It appears that a tender has been floated and on being successful, the work has been allotted and agreement has been entered into by the petitioner vide Agreement no. 1F2 of 2013-14 on 02.05.2013 for construction of C-Type quarter. It appears that Rs. 15 Lakhs has been paid as advance. It is admitted position that the work has not been completed.

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming the payment proportionate to the work already done.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer saying that it is a contractual dispute and cannot be adjudicated by this Court. For incomplete work, no payment can be made. For this purpose, he has relied upon a judgment reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728 [Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India and others.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that there was an agreement between the parties for construction of C-Type quarter. Admittedly, 15 Lakhs has been paid as advance. It is also admitted position that the work has not been completed. The

¶22

¶23

quantum of work completed is in dispute by both the parties. The applicant is claiming that he has completed 90% of work while the respondents are not accepting the same. Since, there is serious dispute between the parties and furthermore, the work itself has not been completed by the Contractor, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. However, the writ petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy, in accordance with law.

¶24

(Rajesh Kumar, J)

¶25

jk/

Ms Vicky Construction through Its Proprietor Kalim Akhtar v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Vicky Construction through Its Proprietor Kalim Akhtar v. the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishore Kumar Mehta Alias Bablu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Ram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kishori Mandal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ranchhor Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vicky Munda Alias Vicky Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Narayan Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand