IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Girin Deka S/o Late Baidar Deka And Anr. – Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India And Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) 7326 of 2018
Decided on : 12-06-2023
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 - Section 2 (d), 15, 16 - Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 70 - Claim for release of contractual amount - Termination of contract - Default and non-execution of works - Petition filed with a claim for release of a contractual amount in respect of a work done by petitioners – There is no allegation of any manner that petitioners have any other commercial connection with foreign entity, except work in question - Para 36.
Finding of the Court: Records reveal that it is only in relation to portion of work of four laning of National Highway which has been sub-contracted to petitioners as petitioners are connected with Contractor-CCCSA - There is no allegation of any manner that petitioners have any other commercial connection with foreign entity, except work in question - Matter would have been different if a claim of present nature was made by a subsidiary or a sister concern of principal Contractor - It is seen that role of petitioners was at par with role of principal Contractor vis-a-vis work in question - Petitioners make it clear that compensation in form of payment cannot be refused if a person lawfully does work assignment of work appears to be done by following due process of law, including agreement and tripartite agreement - Further, execution of work by petitioners is not in dispute - Court is of considered opinion that withholding amount of bills submitted by petitioners for works done by them for default caused by another entity is not justified.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The instant writ petition has been filed with a claim for release of a contractual amount in respect of a work done by the petitioners. Since the scope of a writ court in matters of the present nature is limited, this Court would proceed within the parameters laid down by various judicial pronouncements to adjudicate this matter.
2. There are two petitioners in this petition. While the petitioner no. 1 is the Proprietor of a proprietorship firm, the petitioner no. 2 is the Firm. The petitioners claim to be manufacturers of quarry materials and other similar materials and also undertake civil engineering projects. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (respondent no. 1) had entered into a contract with M/s Corsan Corviam Constructions S.A. (respondent no. 5). The aforesaid respondent no. 5 (hereinafter referred to as the CCCSA) is a company from Spain which had entered into the aforesaid contract on 19.11.2014. The work was relating to the construction of four laning of Jorhat to Jhanji Section of NH 37 in the State of Assam from 453.000 to 491.050 km on Engineering Procurement Contract (EPC). Clause 3.7 (d), (g) and Clauses No. 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3 and 3.4 of the aforesaid contract dated 19.11.2014 provides that the principal Contractor-CCCSA would be entitled to enter into a sub-contract with other Contractors for completion of the said project. It is the case of the petitioners that an agreement was arrived at between the CCCSA and the petitioners regarding sub-contract which was forwarded for examination by the National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL). Consequently, the General Manager (Project) of the NHIDCL had issued letters dated 11.03.2016, 12.05.2016, 19.10.2016 and 04.11.2016 to the CCCSA whereby, it was informed that the proposal for sub-contract was examined by the NHIDCL which was approved in principle and a length of 482.700+0487.000 for an amount of Rs. 27.52 crores; vide letter dated 12.05.2016 approval was given for km 482+700k to km 487+000 for Rs. 33.35 crores being the cost of 2.88 length of the project; vide letter dated 19.10.2016 length of 2.33 km and additional works of Rs.27 crores; vide letter dated 04.11.2016 the work of 2.33 km as additional works were done and completed by the petitioners. The petitioners claim that all the aforesaid works and additional works were duly approved by the General Manager (Project) NHIDCL on the request of CCCSA and consequently, the works done by the petitioners in terms of the agreement with the CCCSA were approved by the NHIDCL.
3. It is further projected that under Clause 2 of the sub-contract agreement dated 31.05.2016, a provision is there for consideration of the payments to be made by the Contractor to the Sub-Contractor by which the Sub-Contractor was required to execute the scope of the work as per the General Conditions of Contract (GCC).
4. While the petitioners claim to have completed the work in all respects, they could learn that the NHIDCL had issued a letter dated 07.06.2017 to the CCCSA for termination of the contract dated 19.11.2014. The said termination was done in terms of Clause 23.1 of the contract on the ground of default and non-execution of the works by the CCCSA. The work pertained to the other portion of the main work which was not sub-contracted to the petitioners. The tripartite agreement dated 05.05.2015 which was entered as per Clause 23.1.1 of the contract was also terminated. The petitioners allege that neither the termination letter was served upon them nor any termination payments made.
5. The primary contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners had executed the work entrusted to them as Sub-Contractor by the CCCSA. Therefore, no fault, whatsoever can be attributed to the petitioners qua the works involved in the subcontract. Therefore, the petitioners claim that they are entitled to the amount as per the contract in question which has been quantified at Rs. 11,06,85,770/-(R
Section 16 lays down that even interest is payable on amount entitled to by a unit.
The court established that claims for payment under a subcontract must be pursued through appropriate civil channels, particularly when they involve disputed facts and contractual obligations.
The Court can direct a CBI inquiry when there is evidence of corruption, and the completion certificate withdrawal invalidated the Performance Certificate.
The main contractor is liable to obtain a labor license for all workforces, including those of sub-contractors, under the Contract Labour Act if the total number exceeds 20 workers.
Disputes over contract terms and payments should be resolved through arbitration as per the agreement and MoU signed between the parties.
The significance of admitted liabilities, conflicting stands, and serious disputed questions of fact in contractual matters, and the discretion of the court in exercising jurisdiction.
Non-compliance with statutory obligations and contractual clauses can justify the termination of a contract.
The lawful termination of a contract by a contractor does not entitle the subcontractor to claim loss of profit if performance issues warrant termination; validated assessments dictate payment entitl....
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.