Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Garg Construction Company - Petitioner
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Others – Respondents
W.P.(C) 116, 9873, 9874, 483, 492, 2140, 2190, 2198, 2202, 2411, 2412, 2413, 2704, 2705, 4859, 6952, 7276, 7280, 8910, 9809, 9814, 9871, 9872, 9876, 9885, 9889, 9890, 9891, 9907, 10501, 10503, 10504, 10605, 10606, 10607, 11285, 11286, 11287, 11314, 11438, 11440, 11449, 11451, 11456, 11477, 11731, 11771, 12243, 12244, 12245, 12248, 12274, 12246, 14959, 14989, 15152 of 2021, 1336, 1361, 1386, 1387, 1456, 1457, 2511, 2938, 3419, 4299, 4350, 5032, 5486, 6141, 6781, 6796, 9747, 9924, 9966, 10590, 10597, 10598, 10605, 10606, 12051, 12066, 12070, 12108, 12127, 13020, 13773, 12157 of 2022, W.P.(C) 5444, 5445, 5446, 11728 of 2021 and CM APPLs.16870-71, 16872-73, 16874-75, 36247 of 2021, W.P.(C) 6842, 7013, 12111, 13136 of 2022 & CM APPL. 20835, 21490, 36196, 41992 of 2022, W.P.(C) 9887 of 2021 & CM APPL. 37508 of 2022, 37511 of 2022
Decided On : 25-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - DMC Act - Contract Act, 1872 - Section 46 - Delhi Municipal. Corporation, 1957 - Bills - Release of payments due - Petitioners have sought release of payments due and payable to them under bills prepared and approved – Held, Not only amount allocated for disbursement is miniscule, but also ratio specified with regard to manner of disbursement bears no rationale - Ratio specified by Corporation is arbitrary and unreasonable - Court is also persuaded to take note of fact that policy fails to specify as to how many contractors are awaiting their payments from Corporation - Insofar the Corporation’s decision to release payments in a phased manner is concerned, it is reiterated that brunt of shortage/non-availability of funds with Corporation shall not be borne by a contractor who has duly executed tendered works and whose bills have been approved - Moreover, summary of outstanding dues/arrears of principal amounts placed on record by petitioners has not been disputed by Corporation, relevant bills having been prepared and approved by officials of Corporation itself - Corporation is directed to release payments due towards principal amounts to petitioners, against verified and approved bills, within a period of eight weeks from date of passing of this judgment – Petitions allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
1. By way of the present batch of petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought release of payments due and payable to them under the bills prepared and approved by respective Assistant Engineer(s) and counter-signed by Junior Engineer(s) of the erstwhile North Delhi Municipal Corporation, East Delhi Municipal Corporation and South Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter, collectively referred to as ‘Corporation’) against the works executed by the petitioners. The petitioners have also claimed interest @ 24% per annum from the date of approval of the bills.
2. As the issue raised in all petitions is the same, they have been taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of accordingly vide a common judgment. With the consent of the parties, W.P.(C) 116/2021 is being treated as the lead case.
3. A perusal of the petitions would show that the petitioners claim themselves to be registered contractors engaged with the Corporation for carrying out development work in various municipal wards. They are aggrieved by the failure of the Corporation in making payments due towards them for execution of tender works, and reportedly in some cases, the bills have remained pending for reimbursement by the Corporation since the year 2014-15.
4. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the Corporation has not released the due payments, ostensibly relying on Clauses 7 and 9 of the General Conditions of Contract. It was also submitted that despite repeated reminders, the Corporation has failed to take requisite action and the same has resulted in a situation where the petitioners have been forced to take loan from the market, on interest, for executing others’ tenders.
To supplement the petitioners’ contentions, a summary of outstanding dues/arrears has been placed on record depicting the principal amounts and interests claimed by them. The summary of claimed dues towards principal amounts is extracted below:-
| Summary of Outstanding Dues/ Arrears | ||||||||
| S. No. | Writ Petition No. | Title of Writ Petition | Outstanding Principal Amount of Bills claimed in the Writ Petition (In Rupees) (A) | Amount received during pendency of Writ Petition, if any. [In Rupees] (B) | Principal Outstanding Amount [In Rupees] C= (A-B) |
| ||
| 1 | W.P. (C) 116/2021 | Garg Construction Co. vs. NDMC | 6,20,42,493 | 8,71,701 | 6,11,70,792 | |||
| 2 | W.P. (C ) 5486/2022 | Gaurav Mehtan VS. NDMC | 2,04,85,656 | 10,22,238 | 1,94,63,418 | |||
| 3 | W.P. (C ) 9924/2022 | K K Enterprises VS. NDMC | 21,27,856 | NIL | 21,27,856 | |||
| 4 | W.P. (C ) 9966/2022 | Shree Builders VS. NDMC | 51,58,050 | 9,13,927 | 42,44,123 | |||
| 5 | W.P. (C ) 2511/2022 | Neeraj Gupta VS. NDMC | 97,70,963 | NIL | 97,70,963 | |||
| 6 | W.P. (C ) 3419/2022 | G. R. Constructions VS. NDMC | 1,23,42,184 | NIL | 1,23,42,184 | |||
| 7 | W.P. (C ) 4299/2022 | Prem Mehta VS. NDMC | 59,49,751 | 6,99,167 | 52,50,584 | |||
| 8 | W. P. (C ) 4350/2022 | SRK Construction VS. NDMC | 24,73,490 | NIL | 24,73,490 | |||
| 9 | W.P. (C ) 5032/2022 | R.K. Tushir Const. VS. NDMC | 2,02,58,092 | 32,30,706 | 1,70,27,386 | |||
| 10 | W. P. (C ) 6141/2022 | Jatin Const. VS. NDMC | 1,75,27,385 | 19,71,669 | 1,55,55,716 | |||
| 11 | W.P. (C ) 9747/2022 | Gupta Engineering Co VS. NDMC | 27,94,916 | NIL | 27,94,916 | |||
| 12 | W.P. (C ) 483/2021 | M S Builders VS. NDMC | 1,68,19,438 | 17,39,039 | 1,50,80,399 | |||
| 13 | W.P. (C ) 492/2021 | BarahiConsts.VS. NDMC | 4,52,88,898 | 52,23,226 | 4,00,65,672 | |||
| 14 | W.P. (C ) 2140/2021 | Krishna Builders VS. NDMC | 1,37,95,533 | 7,25,429 | 1,30,70,104 | |||
| 15 | W.P. (C ) 2190/2021 | Kalra Const. VS. NDMC | 3,59,59,729 | 16,72,298 | 3,42,87,431 | |||
| 16 | W.P (C ) 2198/2021 | Rakesh Bansal VS. NDMC | 5,69,61,996 | 82,43,095 | 4,87,18 | |||
The judgment established the requirement for reasonable time for payment and the illegality of clauses that postpone consideration indefinitely.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that contractual clauses must be reasonable and not unconscionable, and contractors should be paid within a reasonable time as per Section 46 of th....
Payment terms in contracts must include reasonable timelines; indefinite delays render contractual clauses illegal and against public policy.
Indefinite payment conditions in contracts are unreasonable and violate the principle of contractual consideration, requiring clarity and a specified timeline.
The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court has the discretion to entertain or not to enterta....
The court emphasized that the decisions regarding the release of payment to contractors should align with the terms and conditions of the agreement and should not be unilaterally imposed after the ex....
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 ....
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
