Disposed

M/s.Senthil & Co., v. The General Manager

Madras HC6 Nov 2019WP/3401/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a railway contractor, challenged non-payment of final bill and security deposit vide writ petition. The court noted the respondents had received a clearance letter pending only administrative funding. On terms, the petitioner was directed to get its payment and file a compliance report before the court.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Respondents to make expeditious payment of dues and file a compliance report before the Registrar (Judicial) by 31.01.2020.

M/s.Senthil & Co., Vs The General Manager — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.11.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU

¶5

W.P. No. 3401 of 2018

¶6

M/s. Senthil & Co. Railway Contractor, A Registered Partnership firm

¶7

Rep by its partner Mr. P.Senthilvelavan S/o. C. Ponnumalai

¶8

No.1/124, Periyerpatti Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District.

¶9

... Petitioner -vs-

¶10

The General Manager, Southern Railway, Head Quarters,

¶11

Chennai – 600 003.

¶12

The Senior Divisional Finance Manager Southern Railway

¶13

Madurai Division, Madurai.

¶14

The Senior Divisional Engineer/Co-ordination Southern Railway,

¶15

Madurai Division, Madurai.

¶16

The Senior Divisional Engineer (North) Southern Railway,

¶17

Madurai Division, Madurai.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to pay the Petitioner an amount of Rs. 2,28,529/- towards the final bill amount plus Rs.1,89,126/towards security deposit amount and Rs.36,000/- towards the EMD and thus totally Rs.4,53,655/- along with to refund the deducted amount and bill for extra/new item of work for 3925 tie bars from the date of the completion of the work on 16.10.2006 till

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

1/4

¶22

the date of disbursement with interest at the prevailing bank rate in respect of agreement No.MDU.73/2003.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr. G. Rajan For Respondents: Mr. P.T. Ramkumar

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard Mr. G. Rajan, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.T. Ramkumar, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

¶26

The Writ Petition has been filed a direction to the Respondents to pay the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 2,28,529/towards the final bill amount and a sum of Rs.1,89,126/- towards security deposit amount and a sum of Rs.36,000/- towards the earnest money deposit aggregating to a sum of Rs.4,53,655/- and to refund the deducted amount and bill for extra/new item of work for 3925 tie bars from the date of the completion of the work on 16.10.2006 till the date of disbursement with interest at the prevailing bank rate in respect of agreement No. MDU. 73/2003.

¶27

Learned Stating Counsel appearing for the Respondents has produced a copy of the letter dated 30.09.2019 received by him from the Fourth Respondent, in which it has been stated as follows:“1. The above work for the value of Rs. 43,52,513/- was awarded to the contractor M/s. Senthil & Co. vide letter of acceptance No.U/W.496/Tender/15/02 dated 21.10.2002. The Contractor has paid EMD for the value of Rs.36,000/- in the form of FDR No. 54429 date 16.09.2002 issued by Canara Bank of India, Papampatti Branch, Omalur Taluk. The contractor has executed the agreement pertaining to the above work vide agreement No.MDU/73/2003 dated 27.02.2003. The work to be completed within the currency period of 20 months upto 20.06.2004. The above work was commenced on 28.01.2003 and completed 16.10.2006 by the contractor duly extending the currency period. 2. The security deposit for the value of Rs.1,89,126/- to above agreement value have been recovered from the CC part bills. The contractor has been paid cumulative bill amount for

¶28

2/4

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

Rs.39,02364/- upto XI the & part bill No. 36 dated 07.10.2006.

¶31

During the execution of work, the additional locations were executed with the approval of competent authority. Due to variation in t he quantity of work and non operation of the items in the schedule 'B', the agreement value was decreased (-5.09%) from Rs.43,52,513/- to Rs.41,30,893/-.

¶32

Due to which, the XII & final bill for the value of Rs.2,28,529/- is kept pending to be paid to the contractor, for which the file sent to Associate Finance and returned with observation. The same will be attended shortly and all the dues pending will be cleared”.

¶33

The aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the Respondents is placed on record.

¶34

It shall be ensured by the Respondents that the payments due
by them to the Petitioner is expeditiously made under written
acknowledgment and a report of the compliance in this regard
shall be filed before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by
31.01.2020.
5. The Writ Petition is disposed on the aforesaid terms. No
costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Insp.Cell)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To

¶35

The General Manager, Southern Railway, Head Quarters, Chennai – 600 003. 2. The Senior Divisional Finance Manager Southern Railway Madurai Division, Madurai. 3. The Senior Divisional Engineer/Co-ordination Southern Railway, Madurai Division, Madurai.

¶36

3/4

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

The Senior Divisional Engineer (North) Southern Railway, Madurai Division, Madurai.

¶39

The Registrar (Judicial), Madras High Court, Chennai - 600 104.

¶40

+1cc to Mr. P.T. Ramkumar, Advocate sr.92347

¶41

W.P. No. 3401 of 2018
rv(co)
nr 15/11/2019

¶42

4/4

¶43

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.Senthil & Co., v. The General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Senthil & Co., v. The General Manager

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

Amalraj Barnabas Vs Union of India rep by its

Pudur Periya Pallivasal Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

Pudur Periya Pallivasal Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

P.Murugan Vs The Superintendent of Police

M/s.Marine Equipment Vs The Chairman

M/s.Pss Sports and Recreation Club, Vs The Superintendent of Police