Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AMRITA SINHA
Great Sports Tech Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Amrita Sinha, J.
1. The facts of the instant case are recorded in the order dated 17th January, 2025. The petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondent authorities to release the admitted dues along with interest. Prayer has also been made for releasing the earnest money deposit and the security deposit.
2. The dues of the petitioner, though admitted by the Public Works Directorate (PWD) i.e., the authority issuing the contract, hasn’t been paid because the Sports Authority of India (SAI) is not releasing payment to PWD on the ground that Customs Duty exemption has not been obtained by PWD. Had the Customs authority permitted exemption of duty, then the amount to be paid by SAI will be reduced to some extent. Both the respondent authorities are passing the buck to the other for obtaining the exemption certificate from the Customs authority. The petitioner has been caught in the fray and is left without payment for the work done. The earnest money deposit and the security deposit are also not being refunded even though the defect liability period is long over.
3. The report of the Executive Engineer, PWD dated 7th December, 2010 clearly mentions that obtaining the Cust
State cannot withhold admitted dues for executed and accepted public works citing paucity of funds or lack of privity among instrumentalities; violates Article 14, warrants interest on delay.
State and instrumentalities jointly liable for admitted dues on executed and accepted public works; cannot withhold payments citing no privity, paucity of funds or delays, violating Article 14; must ....
State and instrumentalities cannot withhold admitted dues for executed and accepted works on paucity of funds or privity pleas; violates Article 14; writ maintainable; interest payable for arbitrary ....
State cannot withhold admitted dues for executed works from which it benefited, citing procedural lapses or paucity of funds; such arbitrary action violates Article 14, attracting writ jurisdiction u....
Writ petitions are maintainable for contractual claims against state entities, and withholding payments due to contractors on arbitrary grounds violates constitutional obligations to act fairly.
A writ petition for recovery of admitted amounts is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, provided there are no complex factual disputes.
The petitioner's right to receive payment was independent of PAC's consideration of the CAG report, and the State of Bihar's admission of liability to pay the claimed amount rendered objections based....
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
