IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J.
M/s BSBK Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Urban Administration and Development & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) Nos. 3339, 3807, 5057 of 2023
Decided On : 29-04-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of contract execution and petitioner's claims. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding delays and price escalation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's view on natural justice and administrative actions. (Para 8 , 10 , 20) |
| 4. entitlement to price escalation despite contract terms. (Para 22 , 24) |
| 5. final order regarding claims and timelines for review. (Para 27 , 28) |
ORDER :
1. Since the issue raised in the above captioned Writ Petitions filed by the petitioner bearing W.P.(C) No. 3339/2023; W.P.(C) No. 3807 of 2023 and W.P.(C) No. 5057 of 2023 are common, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.
2. The relief(s) sought in the above-stated petitions are stated herein below:-
“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in respect of the grievance of the Petitioner kept in the possession of the Respondents, for its kind perusal;
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to adjudicate and declare that in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is entitled to price escalation from the respondents;
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately make payment of the price escalation to the petitioner for the work executed beyond the original contract period of 36 months along with its respective Running Account Bills;
10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;
10.5 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant cost of the petition to the Petitioner.”
W.P.(C) No. 3807 of 2023:-
“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in respect of the grievance of the Petitioner kept in the possession of the Respondents, for its kind perusal;
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned letters dated 26.07.2023 (ANNEXURE – P/8) 27.07.2023 (ANNEXURE – P/10) and 03.08.2023 (ANNEXURE P-12), invoking the Advance Bank Guarantee No. 0853619BG0000058, 0853619BG0000041 and declare the same to be illegal;
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to recover Mobilization Advance from the Petitioner on pro-rata basis from the Running Account Bills of the Petitioner till the 100% value of work so that it stands fully recovered on completion of work;
10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;
10.5 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant cost of the petition to the Petitioner.”
W.P.(C) No. 5057 of 2023:-
“10.1 Call for the entire records in the possession of the Respondents in respect of the grievances of the Petitioner, for its kind perusal;
10.2 Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 08.09.2023 (ANNEXURE – P/40) passed by the State Government;
10.3 Adjudicate and declare that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is entitled to price escalation from the Respondents for all works executed beyond the original contractual period of 36 months, in line with proposals submitted in the joint representations dated 24.01.2023, 22.02.2023 and 16.03.2023 addressed by the PMAY-HFA contractors (including the Petitioner) to the State Government;
10.4 Adjudicate and declare that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner is entitled to payment of GST at enhanced rate of 18% with effect from 18.07.2022, as prescribed vide Notification No. 3/22 dated 13.07.2022;
10.5 Grant costs of the Petition in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents; &
10.6 Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may consider necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
3. The facts in a nutshell are that the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur invited bids on 24.12.2018 for the construction o
Union of India and Others Vs. Tantia Construction Private Limited
Bharat Coking Coal Limited and Others Vs. Amr Dev Prabha and Others
State Bank of India and Others Vs. Rajesh Agrawal and Others
Assam State Electricity Board and Others Vs. Buildworth Private Limited
NTPC Limited Vs. Deconar Services Private Limited
M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. Vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd.
Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of H.P.
Joshi Technologies International Vs. Union of India
Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks
State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr.
D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.
The court affirmed contractors' rights to price escalation due to delays in site handover by the Municipal Corporation, emphasizing non-compliance with contract terms and fair hearing principles in a....
Contractual obligations can invoke writ jurisdiction if government delays or failures cause undue harm, justifying payment escalations.
The existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement does not ipso facto render a writ petition not maintainable. The High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in exceptional circumstanc....
A contract's timelines affected by mutual agreements for delays allow claims for price escalation under applicable clauses, establishing equity in contractual relations with state entities.
The court established that a contractor may be entitled to price escalation under a contract if the actual completion period extends beyond the originally stipulated time, even if the initial contrac....
Contractual agreement - Whether existence of arbitral agreement between parties that High Court of Delhi alone will have jurisdiction to try dispute arising out of contract is enforceable in law - Un....
The court emphasized the limitations and parameters of exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly in cases involving private contracts, and highlighted the need for detailed evidence and....
The Court determined that contractual disputes involving factual questions requiring evidence must be resolved outside the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of abiding by the dispute resolution mechanism provided in the Agreement for resolving disputes arising from the contract. The Court....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.