Disposed

Nawal Kishore Pd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC6 Sept 2012CWJC/16423/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner claimed non-payment of bills for work executed between 1994-97 under valid orders. The Court held that completed work must be paid and fund paucity is not a valid excuse. It directed payment within three months, liable for 12% interest if delayed, allowing adjudication thereafter if bills are rejected.

What did the court decide?

Direction to examine bills and release admissible amount within three months; liability for 12% compoundable interest if not paid; liberty to seek adjudication if bills are rejected.

Nawal Kishore Pd. Vs The State Of Bihar and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16423 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Nawal Kishore Prasad, son of late Judagi Prasad, resident of VillageLalganj Sehra, P.O.-Sehra, P.S.-Paliganj, District-Patna.

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶4

The State Of Bihar

¶5

The Secretary, Bihar Police Building and Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶6

The Engineer-in-Chief Bihar Police Building and Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Executive Engineer, Bihar Police Building and Construction Department, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The S.D.O., Bihar Police Building and Construction Department, Patna. 6. J.E., Bihar Police Building Construction Department, Patna.

¶9

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhupendra Narain Yadav For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajesh Singh Gp16

¶10

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 06-09-2012 As per the case of petitioner, under valid orders of the competent authorities, he executed different work during the period 1994-97 and time to time with completion of the work he submitted his bills also. The details of work executed and completed by him are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ application. Submission is that works executed by the petitioner were measured by the Junior Engineer and report of completion was also submitted. However, grievance is that the amount of the bills has not been paid to the petitioner so far, in spite of passage of such a long time.

¶12

It goes without saying that, if the petitioner has

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.16423 of 2012 (3) dt.06-09-2012

¶14

2 / 3

¶15

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

¶16

pending.

¶17

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/its bills in the light of work done by him/it 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,

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.16423 of 2012 (3) dt.06-09-2012

¶19

3 / 3

¶20

petitioner shall be at liberty to seek his remedy in accordance with law before an appropriate forum and claim an adjudication in respect of his entitlement of the said amount with interest.

¶21

Arvind/-

¶22

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

Nawal Kishore Pd. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawal Kishore Pd. 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

Panagarh Engineering Works Vs The North Eastern Railway and Ors.

Binay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ramjit Sharma and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Environment and Forest Department, and Ors.

Prasant Kumar Vs The National Insurance Company and Ors.

Prashant Kumar Jha Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

M/s Ramji Mistri Saw Mill and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.