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

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4239

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
MJD Construction and Engineering Contractors (P) Limited - Appellant
Versus
Chief Engineer, National Highways, Chennai - Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 30300 of 2023, W.M.P. (MD) No. 26105 of 2023
Decided On : 09-01-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : N. Dilip Kumar, C. Bharathi
For the Respondent: S. Kameswaran

A contractor's maintenance obligations should correspond with completion dates of respective project phases, penalizing the contractor for delays caused by the client is unwarranted.

Headnote:(A) Contract Law - Maintenance obligations - The petition pertains to the issuance of a work completion certificate for road construction - The petitioner completed work in phases, and the resulting delay was attributed to the respondent - Completion certificate issued on 14.07.2022 quashed and two separate certificates ordered for respective phases - Petitioner entitled to maintain the first phase for five years from 30.10.2020. (Paras 7, 8)

(B) Quashing of certificate - The court established that the third respondent should have issued a completion certificate for the first phase by October 2020 based on the results of tests conducted - The delay is due to actions of the third respondent. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was awarded a contract for strengthening NH-47 and completed the first phase by 29.10.2020. The second phase was completed on 03.03.2022, but the consolidated completion certificate was issued on 14.07.2022, leading to the writ petition. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The consolidated completion certificate dated 14.07.2022 is quashed, and the third respondent is directed to issue separate completion certificates for each phase of the work, effective for maintenance purposes. (Paras 7, 8)

Issues: The core issues involve determining maintenance obligations based on the completion dates of the two phases of roadwork and the issuance of appropriate completion certificates. (Paras 4, 5)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the timing of maintenance obligations should correlate with phase completion, affirming that due to the respondent's actions, the petitioner should not be penalized for maintaining the road until 2027 based on a delayed certificate issue. (Para 6)

Result: Writ petition partly allowed; certificate quashed and separate certificates directed to be issued.

Table of Content
1. writ petition filed to quash completion certificate (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner’s entitlement to maintain road (Para 3)
3. defense about completion of work (Para 4)
4. examination of contractual obligations and delay attributions. (Para 5)
5. impact of respondent's actions on work completion (Para 6)
6. court quashes impugned certificate (Para 7)
7. writ petition partly allowed (Para 8)

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed to quash the consolidated completion certificate dated 14.07.2022 issued by the third respondent and consequently directing the third respondent to issue work completion certificate with respective work completed dated i.e., 09.11.2020 and 27.02.2022.

2. The claim of the petitioner is that under the Annual Plan 2018-19, the work of strengthening in Km 599/0-633/0 in selected stretches of NH-47 including the widening of existing two lane at Km 625/0 - 626/2 into double Lane with paved shoulders of NH47 in the State of Tamil Nadu on Engineering, Procurement & Construction on EPC mode was awarded to the petitioner as per agreement dated 11.11.2019 and the appointment date was fixed on 20.11.2019. As per the agreement between the petitioner as well as the third respondent, the petitioner company commenced work and Bituminous Concrete (Wearing coat) work were completed for the reaches Km 607/0 – 610/100, Km 623/0 – 626/187, Km 630/0 – 630/546 and Km 631/660 – 632/520 of HN4 on 29.10.2020. The work of balance stretches from Km 610/100 – 620/0 and Km 631/0 – 639/0 of NH47 was stopped as per the Letter No.AP 883 / 20-18-2019 / A1 / dated 10.08.2020 due to laying of pipeline work by Divisional Engineer, National Highways, Nagercoil. After completion of the TWAD Board works, the petitioner resumed the road work on 16.09.2021 and completed the balance works in all respects on 03.03.2022 and a consolidated completion certificate was issued on 14.07.2022. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. The plight of the petitioner as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the entire work was done in two phases and that the first phase of work was over on 20.09.2020. The petitioner company is bound to maintain the road for a period of five years from the date of completion in terms of agreement entered into between the petitioner company and the third respondent. The second phase of work was completed on 03.03.2022 and in terms of the said agreement, the petitioner is entitled to maintain both the stretch of roads in the first phase of work for a period of five years from 30.10.2020 and the second phase of work commencing from 04.03.2022. Since the consolidated completion certificate was issued only on 14.07.2022, the petitioner is in compulsion to maintain the entire stretch till 2027 which would be at his disadvantage causing him heavy loss. As per EPC mode, the maintenance period is only 5 years. The petitioner completed the first phase of work as early as on 29.10.2020 and the delay in completing the second phase of work could be attributed only to the third respondent. Only on the direction by Letter No.AP 883/2018-19/Al, dated 10.08.2020, the petitioner was in a compulsion to stall the work of the first phase and wait till the TWAD board work was completed, as directed by the third respondent. For clarity, the same is extracted as follows:

Since the petitioner was not able to complete the second phase that is, the entire work in a single strength, the reason which is attributed only to the third respondent, the petitioner cannot be compelled to maintain the entire stretch till 2027 and hence, the petitioner is before me.

4. Mr.S.Kameswaran, learned Government Advocate based on his counter affidavit submitted that, as per the agreement entered into between the petitioner as well as the third respondent, the entire work was completed only on 27.02.2022. The work was completed physically only on 03.03.2022 but the same would be considered to be completed only after get

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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