Disposed

M/s Sunni Kumari and Co. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC14 Sept 2012CWJC/17238/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court directed the respondent to examine the petitioner's bills for electric materials supplied and release the admissible amount within three months. The court held that paucity of funds cannot excuse non-payment and ordered 12% annual compound interest if payment is delayed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to examine bills and release admissible amount within three months; liability for 12% compound annual interest if payment is delayed.

M/s Sunni Kumari and Co. Vs The State Of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17238 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== M/S Sunni Kumari & Co. through Subhash Kumar, son of Sri Ram Balak Singh, At+P.O.-Bagdov, P.S.-Naya Gaon, District-Begusarai.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar represented through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. Secretary, Department of Minor Irrigation, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Project Co-ordinator, Tubewell Section, Visheshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. Chief Engineer (North) Tube-well Section, Muzaffarpur. 5. Superintending Engineer, Tube-well Section, Darbhanga Circle, Laheriasarai, District-Darbhanga. 6. Executive Engineer, Tube-well Division, Opposite D.C.Singh, Petrol Pump, Begusarai. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vivekanand Prasad Singh, Adv., AOR No.0407. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bijoy Kumar Sinha, AC to AAG-9, AOR No.00228.

¶5

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

¶6

3 14-09-2012 As per the case of petitioner, under valid orders of the respondents, he made supply of electric materials and gadgets under Tube-well Division, Begusarai in the year 2010-11. After making full supply, he submitted his bills.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at one point of time a cheque of admitted amount was issued in favour of the petitioner, but the same could not be encashed due to failure of the link in the branch of the Bank and thereafter financial year ended and in the new financial year no allotment has been

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.17238 of 2012 (3) dt.14-09-2012

¶9

2 / 3

¶10

made for payment to the petitioner. As such, his due amount still remains unpaid.

¶11

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 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 pending.

¶12

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

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.17238 of 2012 (3) dt.14-09-2012

¶14

3 / 3

¶15

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 an adjudication in respect of his entitlement of the said amount with interest.

¶16

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶17

Arvind/-

M/s Sunni Kumari and Co. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Sunni Kumari and Co. 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

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.andOR

Amit Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Mohan Pd. Yadav Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

M/s Pawansut Construction Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.