Allowed

Subhash Chand v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Apr 2009CWP/5368/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to release payment for work executed by the petitioner. The Court directed respondents to settle the account and release the due amount within two months, leaving the claim for interest to be pursued separately.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to settle the petitioner's account and release whatever is found due within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Subhash Chand Vs State of Punjab… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

C.W.P NO. 5368 OF 2009

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P NO. 5368 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 02.04.2009

Subhash Chand

...Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶11

Present : Mr. L. S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Notice of motion.

¶14

Mr. Palwinder Singh, Senior DAG, Punjab, accepts

¶15

notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to release the payment of Rs.3,48,065/- along with interest for the work executed by him.

¶17

The petitioner is a Contractor, who is stated to have executed the work of repairing the eroded bank between RD36150 to 36500 of LMB on river Ghagar allotted to him vide work order No.37/13 dated 30.08.2007 (Annexure P-1) by the respondents and which the petitioner claims to have completed within the stipulated period and to the satisfaction of the authorities. However, the due payment is not being released to the petitioner, despite service of legal notice dated 15.09.2008 (Annexure P-2) upon the respondents.

¶18

C.W.P NO. 5368 OF 2009

¶19

-2-

¶20

It appears that the petitioner is entitled to be paid certain dues on account of the work executed by him. But the said payment is not being released for one or the other administrative reasons.

¶21

In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that whatever amount the petitioner is found entitled to by the respondents, there is no justification to withhold the payment thereof.

¶22

Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to settle the petitioner's account and whatever is found due, release the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶23

As regards the petitioner's claim for interest, the same cannot be effectively decided in these proceedings and the petitioner would be at liberty to recover the same, if so admissible, as per law.

¶24

Disposed of.

¶25

Let a copy of this order be given dasti on payment of

¶26

usual charges.

¶27

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶28

APRIL 02, 2009 shalini

Subhash Chand v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chand v. State of Punjab 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

Gurudatt Gupta Vs Rameshwar Dass Gupta

M/S Bharti Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Punjab Urban Planning & Dev. Authority & Ors.

Sita Ram Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

M/S Mahalaxmi Projects (P) Ltd. Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Amar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Amar Lal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.