Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Reserves Verdict in Raju Tampering Conviction Plea
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Asraful Alom Mondal, S/o. Abul Hossain Mondal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam, Represented By The Chief Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the non-payment of the contractual bill of Rs.20,11,638.16p for the work awarded to him vide the quotation dated 12.05.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, South Salmara Mankachar District for supplying the good quality of common/grade-A/local (Raw) variety of rice, Masur dal (Big/Small) variety, Mustard Oil (with brand name) of 15 liters tin, Iodised salt, Chira, Gur, polythene sheet, Tarpaulin (size 15’X12’, 15’X18’), Cattle feed (wheat bran), Baby food (Cerelac) etc. for distribution amongst the flood/erosion and other natural calamities affected people of South Salmara Mankachar District for a period of one year up to 31.03.2017 from the date of settlement under the terms and conditions mentioned in the said quotation.
2. The case of the petitioner herein is that pursuant to the quotation dated 12.05.2016, he submitted his quotation along with all the required documents before the authority concerned. It is stated that pursuant to the acceptance of
Verification of compliance with contractual obligations is essential for entitlement to payment in supply agreements.
The court upheld the contractor's right to receive due payments for completed works, emphasizing the necessity for timely payment as acknowledged by the Respondents under Article 226.
Verification of work completion is essential before payment can be issued under Article 226, ensuring entitlement to dues is accurately determined.
The entitlement of contractors for completed work and the responsibility of authorities for timely payment.
The state is obligated to pay the admitted contractual dues to the suppliers within a specified timeframe as mandated by the court.
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
Listen Article