Disposed

Shambhu Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC24 Aug 2012CWJC/15299/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a petition seeking payment of pending bills for construction work completed, this court held that paucity of funds is no excuse for delay. The respondent was directed to examine bills and ensure payment within three months, with a threat of 12% compound interest if delayed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to examine bills and ensure release of due amount within three months, failing which respondent shall pay interest at 12% compoundable yearly.

Shambhu Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15299 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Shambhu Kumar Mishra, son of Ramshrestha Mishra resident of Village Bhikhanpura Dakshin Tola; Police Station Sadar; District Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Chief Engineer, Building Construction Division, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Building Division, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Division, Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Kailash Nath Diwakar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Singh GP16 Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, AC to GP 16 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 24-08-2012 As per the case of petitioner, on the basis of valid work orders, he executed the work of renovation of main building of Government Polytechnic, Muzaffarpur in the year 2009-10 and completed the same to the satisfaction of the respondents. Thereafter he submitted his bills. The grievance of the petitioner is that though some amount of the bills has been paid to him, remaining amount thereof is still due.

¶3

It goes without saying that, if the petitioner has completed the work as per the contract agreement and to the satisfaction of the respondents, he is entitled for payment of his bills and the respondents have no authority to withhold the same indefinitely without any valid and cogent reasons. It may be made clear that, since petitioner claims to have done the work in terms of the

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.15299 of 2012 (2) dt.24-08-2012

¶5

2 / 2

¶6

agreement and/or under valid orders/authorization by the competent authorities, paucity of fund or non-allotment of fund cannot and should not be an excuse for keeping his bills pending.

¶7

In the circumstances, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent, responsible for payment of the amount of bills of the petitioner, to examine his bills in the light of work done by him and ensure release of admissible amount of the bills to the petitioner positively within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if necessary, by arranging fund for the same, failing which, the said respondent shall be liable to pay an interest on the amount, at the rate of 12% compoundable yearly, from his own pocket. In case, the said respondent finds that the amount of bill or any part thereof is not payable to the petitioner, he shall communicate the same to the petitioner in specific terms, assigning reasons thereof, within that very period. In that event, petitioner shall be at liberty to seek his remedy in accordance with law before an appropriate forum and claim adjudication in respect of his entitlement of the said amount with interest.

¶8

B.T/-

¶9

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

Shambhu Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shambhu Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

M/s Raj Paper Products and Anr. Vs The Central Bank Of India and Ors.

M/s Vishal Builtech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The East Central Railway and Or5s

M/s Swastik Associates Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Md. Zafar Khan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rang Bahadur Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Madhup Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.