IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that liquidated damages can be deducted from amounts due under separate contracts as per the contractual terms.

JUDGMENT :

(Partha Sarathi Sen, J.) :

1. In these two appeals the judgement dated April 25, 2022 as passed by the Learned Single Bench in WPO/475/2016 has been assailed both by the writ petitioner( in APOT No. 220 of 2022) and by the respondent Authority( in APOT No. 190 of 2022).

2. By the judgement impugned the Learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent Authority of the said writ petition that is; Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority ( herein after referred to as the ‘respondent authority’ in short) to disburse a sum of Rs.82,48,925/-in favour of the writ petitioner in respect of the work done by the writ petitioner in respect of Uluberia Project along with Rs. 1 crore, deposited by the petitioner with the respondent authorities as security for Uluberia project positively within May 31, 2022.

3. The respondent Authority felt aggrieved and thus preferred appeal vide; APOT No. 190 of 2022.

4. The writ petitioner also felt aggrieved for not grant of any interest upon the claim amount by the Learned Single Judge and thus approached this Court by filling appeal vide; APOT No. 220 of 2022.

5. Since in these two appeals common questions of facts and laws are involved and since the parties to the instant two appeals are identical and also since both these appeals arise out of a common judgement, we propose to dispose the instant two appeals by a common judgement.

6. For effective adjudication of the instant two appeals the facts leading to filling of WPO/475/2016 before the Learned Single Bench is required to be discussed in a nutshell.

7. The respondent authority issued two separate work orders infavour of the writ petitioner, one of such was for the Uluberia project and another was for the Bansberia Project by executing two separate contracts of which Clauses 46(1) and (3) and Clause 48(3) are identical. In respect of Bansberia project, there occurred an alleged delay of the writ petitioner in carrying out the work for which the respondent Authority deducted a sum of Rs. 82,48,925/-towards liquidated damages from the amount payable to the writ petitioner on account of the work done by the writ petitioner in respect of the Uluberia project.

8. The writ petitioner challenged the aforesaid action of the respondent Authority by filling the aforesaid writ petition.

9. In course of hearing, Mr. Mukherjee, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner argued that when the Learned Single Judge by the impugned order has found that the deduction of Rs. 82,48,925/-by the respondent Authority is contrary to the Law as well as contrary to the aforesaid three clauses of the contract, there is no justification on the part of the Learned Single Judge for not granting interest on such illegal deducted amount.

10. Mr. Mukherjee, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner thus submits that the appeal being APOT No. 220 of 2022 may be allowed by awarding adequate interest upon the awarded amount.

11. Mr. Mukherjee, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner further submits that the Learned Single Bench however in the impugned judgment rightly noticed that the Law of the land as well as the aforesaid three clauses of the contract do not permit the respondent Authorities to recover the alleged liquidated damages by way deduction of the dues of the writ petitioner in connection with a separate project i.e.; Uluberia project and thus APOT No. 190 of 2022 may be dismissed.

12. Per contra, Mr. Dutta Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent Authority submits that on meaningful reading of the aforesaid three clauses of the contract it would reveal that the respondent Authority in order to recover the liquidated damages as imposed by it is within its power to deduct from any sum due or which may become due to writ petitioner. It is thus submitted that the Learned Single Bench has failed to visualize that aspect while passing the impugne