Dismissed¶25

Kamaljeet Verma v. Bhakra Beas Management Board Th Its MD and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Aug 2025CWP/16633/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP-16633-2017 decided 19.08.2025 by Suvir Sehgal J, High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Keywords: writ of mandamus; balance payment; interest @ 18%; contractor; BBMB Bhakra Beas Management Board; 220 KV Sub Station Sangrur; boundary wall reconstruction; allotment letter Annexure P-1; legal notice Annexure P-3; vigilance inspection 08.03.2017 Annexure R-5; contract agreement dated 04.04.2016 Annexure R-1; arbitration Clause 3.19; payment Rs.33,30,991/- against 1st and 2nd bills; penalty Rs.1,43,756/- recovery; abandoned work; extraordinary writ jurisdiction declined; petition dismissed; liberty to pursue legal remedy.

What did the court decide?

No relief on the payment claim; liberty granted to the petitioner to avail the remedy available to him in accordance with law. ¶25

Kamaljeet Verma Vs Bhakra Beas Management Board Th Its MD and Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CWP-16633-2017 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

205

¶4

CWP-16633-2017 Date of Decision:19.08.2025

KAMALJEET VERMA

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

BHAKRA BEAS MANAGEMENT BOARD AND ORS

¶9

...RESPONDENTS

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Sachin Gupta Ladwa, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)

¶15

Instant petition has been filed inter alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the payment for work done by the petitioner-society alongwith interest @ 18%.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was engaged as a Contractor to re-construct defective/tilted boundary wall at 220 KV Sub Station, BBMB, Sangrur, Punjab, vide allotment letter, Annexure P-1, and he completed the work to the satisfaction of the respondents as is evident

¶17

from report, Annexure P-2. Counsel asserts that respondents have not Sheetal 2025.08.26 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶18

CWP-16633-2017 -2-

¶19

released the complete payment despite service of a legal notice, Annexure P-3, which has remained unattended.

¶20

Upon notice, writ petition has been contested by the respondents by filing a written statement and subsequently an additional affidavit was filed by them. Respondents have submitted that work was to be completed within a period of 180 days from the issuance of work order, but petitioner failed to adhere to the time frame and did not complete the work as per the specifications in the work order. It has been submitted that various letters were addressed to the petitioner pointing out the shortcomings and defects. Reference has also been made to an inspection carried out by the vigilance team on 08.03.2017, Annexure R-5. A stand has been taken that an amount of Rs.33,30,991/- was paid to the petitioner against 1^st and 2^nd bills, but as the petitioner failed to conclude the work and abandoned it, he is not entitled to the balance payment. It has been stated that penalty of Rs.1,43,756/- has been imposed and is to be recovered from the petitioner.

¶21

By making a reference to the terms and conditions of the contract agreement dated 04.04.2016, Annexure R-1, counsel for the respondents submits that as a dispute has arisen between the parties, Clause 3.19 provides for the settlement of disputes through the medium of arbitration. By referring to the said clause, he submits that a mechanism for raising a dispute and appointment of an Arbitrator has been laid down, which the petitioner has not adhered to.

¶22

Sheetal 2025.08.26 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

¶23

CWP-16633-2017 -3-

¶24

After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that a dispute regarding the balance payment has arisen between the parties. On the basis of the pleadings filed by the parties, this Court is not in a position to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to the balance amount or whether any recovery is to be effected from him. As there are differences between the parties and a contract entered into between them, which contains an arbitration clause, this Court refrains from exercising its power under the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction.

¶25

6. Writ petition is dismissed.

¶26

Liberty is, however, granted to the petitioner to avail the remedy available to him in accordance with law.

¶27

19.08.2025		(SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal		JUDGE
	Whether Speaking/Reasoned	Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶28

Sheetal 2025.08.26 10:21 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

Kamaljeet Verma v. Bhakra Beas Management Board Th Its MD and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamaljeet Verma v. Bhakra Beas Management Board Th Its MD and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khushbu Vs State of Punjab and Others

Vinita Joshi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vinita Joshi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Baldev Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Usha Devi Vs Pspcl and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Haryana through Managing Director and Others