SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Del) 256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Psk Engineering Construction And Co. - Appellant
Versus
National Projects Construction Corporation Limited & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 15370 of 2023
Decided On : 06-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Hina Shaheen and Mr. Siddharth Kaushik, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Paritosh Budhiraja, Ms. Divya Singh and Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondents.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Payment Dispute - Clause 37 of the Contract - [37 PAYMENTS] - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking direction to release outstanding payments, original fixed deposit receipts, and security deposit. The court held that a writ petition does not lie for recovery of amount under a commercial contract. The court emphasized that the parties are bound by the terms of the contract they willingly entered into and cannot challenge it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court cited precedents to establish that disputes based on pure contractual relationship where there is no public duty element cannot be adjudicated through a writ petition. The court also highlighted that the correct remedy for recovery of money under a contract is to file a suit.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner completed construction work for the Respondent but the outstanding payments were not released. The Petitioner challenged Clause 37 of the contract as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that a writ petition does not lie for recovery of amount under a commercial contract. The court held that the Petitioner willingly entered into the contract and cannot challenge it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court also highlighted that disputes based on pure contractual relationship where there is no public duty element cannot be adjudicated through a writ petition.

Issues: The main issue was whether the court should direct the Respondents to release outstanding payments and whether Clause 37 of the contract should be struck down as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a writ petition does not lie for recovery of amount under a commercial contract. The court emphasized that the parties are bound by the terms of the contract they willingly entered into and cannot challenge it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court cited precedents to establish that disputes based on pure contractual relationship where there is no public duty element cannot be adjudicated through a writ petition. The court also highlighted that the correct remedy for recovery of money under a contract is to file a suit.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court held that the correct remedy for recovery of money under a contract is to file a suit.

JUDGMENT

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

    "a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ that this Hon'ble Court may deem proper, directing the Respondents to:

    i. Pay a sum of Rs.1,33,95,393/- towards the balance value under the bill RAB 24th and Price Escalation RAB 4th & Final;

    ii. Pay the balance value of Rs.16,14,436/- (inclusive of CGST of Rs.2,46,270/-) towards the 18th RA Bill dated 25.03.2020;

    iii. Release and return the Original Fixed Deposit Receipts to the tune of Rs.14,60,000/- submitted towards Performance Bank Guarantee;

    iv. Refund the Security Deposit to the tune of Rs.2,51,66,588/- lying with Respondent No. 1;

    b. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ that this Hon'ble Court may deem proper, declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the outstanding payments of Rs.4,16,36,417/- (Rupees Four Crore Sixteen Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Seventeen Only) for the work executed by the Petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unjust, oppressive, contrary to the principles of natural justice and to strike off the wordings of Clause 37 of the Contract which are arbitrary and violative inter alia of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further direct the Respondents to pay interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the above said sums from the due date till the date of payment in full;

    c. Direct the Respondents to deposit the said amount or part thereof Rs.4,16,36,417/- (Rupees Four Crore Sixteen Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Seventeen Only) in court during the pendency of this Petition;

    d. Grant compensation to the Petitioner for the loss caused by the Respondents by illegally withholding the payments since 03.04.2021;

    e. Pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the Respondent No.1/National Projects Construction Corporation Limited invited a Pre-Qualification bid on 03.07.2017 for Construction of various building and external development works at Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development at Sriperumbudur Post, Tamil Nadu/Respondent No.2 herein. The Petitioner participated in the bidding process and submitted its bid. The bid of the Petitioner was accepted by Respondent No.1 on 31.10.2017 and a Letter of Intent was issued to the Petitioner. Pursuant to that the performance guarantee for a sum of Rs.2,24,70,088/- and the Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.26,96,500/- were given by the Petitioner. On 24.11.2017, a contract agreement was signed between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 for the contract price of Rs.50,33,29,956.89/-. According to the Petitioner, the entire work has been completed to the satisfaction of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the final RA bills have been raised by the Petitioner on 03.04.2021. The defect liability period was expired on 05.09.2022. Discussion regarding the payment of amount took place between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 on 15.11.2022. It is stated that the IIT Madras being the expert body and whose report was sought for quality control has given its report stating that the quality of construction is satisfactory and the same is as per applicable laws and safety standards.

3. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention the Clause 37 of the contract entered into between the parties which deals with as to how the payments are to be made. Clause 37 of the contract reads as under:

    "37 PAYMENTS

    37.1 The bill shall be submitted by contractor each month on or before the date fixed by the Engineer-in- charge for all works executed in previous months. The contractor shall prepare computerized bills using the program as approved by Engineer-in-charge as per prescribed format/pro-forma. The contractor shall submit five numbers of hard copies and one soft copy of flo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top