Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Manoj Kumar Son of Sri Sugamber Prasad & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Revision No.42, 43 and 155 of 2014
Decided On : 09-05-2017
Interest - Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes - Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 - Limitation Act, 1963, Article 25
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners completed works as per agreements but were not paid interest on the principal amount. The Tribunal refused interest beyond three years citing Article 25 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had claimed principal dues amount with interest, and the cause of action for recovery of principal amount and interest was single. The court held that Article 25 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was not applicable, and the appropriate provision of limitation was Article 18 of the same Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of the petitioners to interest on the principal amount beyond three years and the applicability of Article 25 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the petitioners' claim for interest on the principal amount was not time-barred, and the cause of action for the claim of work started when the work was done, as per Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision: The impugned awards were quashed, and the court ordered the payment of interest to the petitioners on their principal amount from the date of completion of works in question.
Civil Revision no. 42/2014 and Civil Revision no. 43/2014 were heard together on 16.3.2017 whereas Civil Revision no. 155/2014 was heard on 28.4.2017 as common question of law was involved in all the above civil revision petitions and accordingly, a common judgment is passed in the aforesaid civil revision petitions.
2. In Civil Revision no. 42/2014, three agreements for barricading of road were allotted to the petitioner by three separate agreements on the occasion of arrival of Hon’ble President of India on three different dates. Petitioner did his allotted works but his payment was not made and accordingly, matter was referred to Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Patna under section 9 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008. During the pendency of the aforesaid reference, the principal amount was paid by the concerned department but no interest was paid and the Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 04.11.2013 holding that petitioner shall be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 30.03.2008 till 30.03.2011 over an amount of Rs 92,674/- under agreement no. 495 F2/2010-11 and simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 16.02.2008 till 30.03.2011 over an amount of Rs. 40,197/- under agreement no. 496 F2/2010-11 and simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum with effect from 16.02.2008 till 30.03.2011 over an amount of Rs 2, 57,234/- under agreement no. 494 F2/2010-11.
3. The Tribunal refused to give interest to the petitioner from the date of completion of work on the ground that Article 25 of the schedule of Limitation Act, 1963 says that to recover interest, there is a period of limitation of three years which runs when the interest becomes due.
4. Likewise, in Civil Revision no. 43/2014, petitioner of the aforesaid civil revision was allotted some works vide agreement no. 469 F2/2010-11, agreement no. 468 F2/2010-11 and agreement no. 467 F2/2010-11 and he completed his work within the time as fixed by the department but payment was not made to him and thereafter, matter was referred to Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Patna under section 9 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008. The principal amount without interest was paid to the petitioner during the pendency of the aforesaid reference case. The Tribunal vide impugned award dated 04.11.2013 held that the petitioner shall be entitled to payment with simple interest at the rate of 10 % per annum on all dues from 26.3.2008 to 26.3.2011 and the Tribunal refused to make payment interest to the petitioner prior to 26.3.2008 on the ground of period of limitation as mentioned under Article 25 of the schedule of Limitation Act, 1963.
5. Similarly, in Civil Revision no. 155/2014, petitioner of the aforesaid civil revision was allotted some works vide agreement no. 168 dated 28.02.2000, agreement no. 224 dated 24.03.2000, agreement no. 225 dated 24.03.2000, agreement no. 226 dated 24.03.2000, agreement no. 227 dated 24.03.2000 and agreement no. 294 dated 17.03.1999 and he completed his work within the time as fixed by the department but payment was not made to him and thereafter, he came to this court by filing writ petition i.e. C.W.J.C. no. 6134/2004 which was disposed of on 09.11.2005 and when the order of this court was not complied with, petitioner filed MJC no. 2389/2007 and the same was dismissed in absence of the petitioner assuming that his grievance had been redressed. Thereafter, petitioner went to Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Patna under section 9 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 by filing Reference Case no. 31 of 2013 and the learned Tribunal vide impugned award dated 03.07.2014 held that the petitioner shall be entitled to payment of Rs. 1, 10, 426.33/- with simple interest at the rate of 10 % per annum with effect from 01.04.2010 t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
