Partly allowed

Bheem Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary Public Health Engineering Department Bihar Patna and

Patna HC15 Apr 2019C.R./51/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an arbitration award dismissing a contractor's claim for unpaid dues and contract payments. The High Court admitted findings on work completion and time extension deductions but remanded the case for the Tribunal to decide on the refund of forfeited security and earnest money.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition disposed of partly; remanded to the Arbitration Tribunal for findings on refund of security deposit and earnest money.

Bheem Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar Through… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVISION No.51 of 2016

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Bheem Prasad, son of late Musafir Prasad, resident of Fida Hussain Road, Police Station and District, Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary Public Health Engineering Department Bihar Patna

¶6

The Engineering-in-Chief -cum- Additional Commissioner -cumSpecial Secretary, P.H.E.D. Government of Bihar, Patna

¶7

The Chief Engineer, P.H.E.D. Government of Bihar, Patna

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, P.H.E.D. Department, Gaya Circle, Gaya

¶9

The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Division, Jehanabad .. ... Respondents …. Opposite Parties

¶10

======================================================

¶11

Appearance :

¶12

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagdish Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan, A.C. to AAG 5

¶13

======================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

Date : 15-04-2019

¶16

Heard parties.

¶17

This revision petition has been filed for setting aside

¶18

the Award dated 04.02.2016 passed in Reference Case No.74 of 2013 by Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Patna dismissing the petition filed under Section 9 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008.

¶19

Petitioner is a “B” class contractor having registration No.36 of 1999 and had got tender for sinking tube well for which agreement was entered on 02.09.2010. Claim is being made with regard to 39 tube well which was sunk by petitioner for which payment was not made to petitioner. Petitioner had moved Hon’ble High Court earlier in its writ

¶20

Patna High Court C.R. No.51 of 2016 dt.15-04-2019 2/4

¶21

jurisdiction for payment of his contractual amount and Rs.2,15,644/- and Rs.60,916/- totalling Rs.2,76,560/- was paid by the respondents which was admitted amount. Petitioner was allotted work for sinking 595 tube well and agreement was entered which was of Rs.2,67,17,568/- and period of contract was 6 months. Petitioner submitted his supplementary claim for refund of security deposit of Rs.3,35,415/-, and deductions made for time extension of Rs.3,73,478/-, Rs.8,37,138/against the work done and for earnest money of Rs.13,43,600/totalling Rs.28,89,631/-.

¶22

Respondents in their counter affidavit had stated that petitioner had sunk 232 hand pipes but on spot verification, only 216 hand pumps were found in working condition. Petitioner was allotted work of sinking of 595 hand pumps but even after several reminders, he did not complete the work allotted to him and contract was terminated. Tender was issued for remaining work and the remaining hand pumps were got sunk by another contractor who completed the work. Petitioner was paid Rs.2,77,258/- against 216 hand pumps. Against 595 hand pumps, only 216 hand pumps were found in working condition and remaining 23 hand pumps were found nonfunctional as such no payment was made for 23 pumps.

¶23

Patna High Court C.R. No.51 of 2016 dt.15-04-2019 3/4

¶24

Petitioner never applied for time extension for completing the work which is essential as per Clause 2 and 5 of the agreement. The Regional Chief Engineer vide letter dated 02.06.2012 approved the proposal to close the agreement and bill amount for 193 completed hand pumps were found to be payable.

¶25

After hearing the parties, it is admitted position that petitioner was allotted contract for sinking 595 hand pumps within contract period but he sunk only 193 hand pumps which were workable and 23 were found choked. Petitioner did not complete the work within contract period and even after several reminders to complete the work, he did not take any steps for completion as a result of which, the agreement was closed and remaining work was allotted to another contractor who completed it. Final payment for 193 hand pumps were made after final measurement on 28.04.2012 amounting to Rs.2,77,258/-. No payment was made for 23 choked hand pumps.

¶26

Petitioner never applied for extension of time to complete the work for which deduction of Rs.3,73,428/- was made in terms of agreement. Agreement was closed and earnest money / security deposit was forfeited vide Regional Chief Engineer’s letter No.497 dated 02.06.2012. The Tribunal did not

¶27

Patna High Court C.R. No.51 of 2016 dt.15-04-2019

¶28

4/4

¶29

find any fault in deduction made for time extension and as such said amount cannot be refunded. Agreement was closed for which petitioner himself was to be blamed. Tribunal also denied the claim with regard to payment against 23 hand pumps sunk by petitioner which was found to be choked, however, Tribunal has not given any finding with respect to claim forfeiture of security money of Rs.3,35,415/- and earnest money of Rs.13,43,600/-.

¶30

Claims were made by petitioner as a supplementary claim, as such, the case is remanded to the Tribunal for its finding with regard to entitlement of petitioner for refund of the security deposit and earnest money forfeited by the opposite parties. As far as finding of the Tribunal of refusal of payment of Rs.3,73,478/- for time extension and non-payment with respect to 23 hand pumps which were found choked does not require any interference.

¶31

This disposes of the civil revision petition.

¶32

(S. Kumar, J)

¶33

Sanjay/-

¶34

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	29.04.2019
Transmission Date	NA

Bheem Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary Public Health Engineering Department Bihar Patna and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheem Prasad v. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary Public Health Engineering Department Bihar Patna and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Upendra Singh and Anr. Vs The Union Of India Through The General Manager

Sri Kapildeo Prasad Vs Raj Kumar Gupta and Ors.

Mankeshwar Nath Tiwari @ Makeshwar Nath Tiwari Vs Naresh Ram and Ors.

Ajay Choudhary Vs Smt. Bibha Devi and Ors.

Madan Singh @ Madandhari Sharma and Ors. Vs Arjun Sao and Ors.

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Kumar