This court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an arbitration award that refunded a security deposit and earnest money to a contractor, holding no error, illegality, or irregularity requiring interference.
None. The revision petition was dismissed and the arbitration award remained intact.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVISION No.94 of 2016
======================================================
1.The State Of Bihar through the Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), “Udyog Bhawan”, 01st Floor, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
2.The Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), “Udyog Bhawan”, 01st Floor, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
3.The Executive Engineer, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA), “Udyog Bhawan”, 01st Floor, East Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
... Respondent/ Petitioners-Respondents
Versus
Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Kumar, s/o Late. Narayan Prasad Singh, r/o Alka Colony, Sandalpur, Kumhrar, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Bahadurpur, District Patna.
... ... petitioner/Opposite party-petitioner
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yashraj Bardhan, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr.Rajendra Kumar, Adv ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-04-2019
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
aside the award dated 04.02.2016 passed by Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Patna in Ref. Case No.
Patna High Court C.R. No.94 of 2016 dt.15-04-2019 2/6
54 of 2013, passed in favour of O.P. No. 1 holding that Opposite Party No.1 is entitled for refund of security deposit of Rs. 10,76,767/-(Rupees Ten Lacs Seventy Six Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Seven) as well as refund of earnest money amounting to Rs. 4,48,900/- (Four Lacs Forty Eight Thousand Nine Hundred) with simple interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of filing i.e. 09.05.2013 till its realization.
Patna High Court C.R. No.94 of 2016 dt.15-04-2019 3/6
bill and again by letter dated 06.04.2010 and letter dated 29.04.2010 addressed to the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, to close the agreement as sites were not being made available. Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer in their report dated 31.05.2010 have certified the work to be as per design drawn specification.
Patna High Court C.R. No.94 of 2016 dt.15-04-2019 4/6
taken by petitioners/BIADA and Amin was deployed and respondent-claimant was asked to work as per the map and the specifications to which respondent-claimant did not agree and area of 236.5 Metres+161.28 Metres of work which was left over had to be re-tendered for completion. There was no complaint made by the new contractor and the work was completed smoothly within time as per specification provided in the map. The respondent-claimant never intended to complete the work within time and delayed the contract on one pretext or the other.
Patna High Court C.R. No.94 of 2016 dt.15-04-2019
5/6
with respect to construction of the boundary wall at the site provided by the petitioners/BIADA instead of resolving the dispute with the local people and in spite of several representation filed by the respondent-claimant, the petitioner authorities terminated the agreement and forfeited the earnest money and security deposit. The tribunal has further held that it cannot be a case of force majeure and constructing boundary wall at wrong place was attributable to petitioners/BIADA authorities since the work was being done in supervision of the Engineers and Amin of the respondent-claimant and respondentclaimant have no role in identification of any part of the site and held that there was no laches, delay or negligence in execution of work or any fundamental breach of the agreement and bound opposite party-claimant to be entitled for refund of security deposit/retention money of Rs. 10,76,767/- and also refund of earnest money deducted from R/A bills amounting to Rs. 4,48,900/- and further opposite party claimant is also entitled for simple interest @ 10 per cent annum on awarded amount with effect from the date of filing i.e. 09.05.2013 till its realization.
Patna High Court C.R. No.94 of 2016 dt.15-04-2019 6/6
irregularity in award passed by the Bihar Public Works Contract Dispute Arbitration Tribunal, Patna, which requires any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction and accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
ranjan/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 21.05.2019 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petition challenging the arbitration award forfeiting earnest money and security deposit deserves interference.
Whether the termination of the contract and forfeiture of amounts were illegal due to the authority's failure to provide the construction site.
State Of Bihar through the Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA)
Anil Kumar Singh @ Anil Kumar
S. Kumar Oral
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
