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

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA 
B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J.
IVRCL - Navayuga SEW JV - Appellant
Vs.
State of Telangana - Respondent
Writ Petition No.34492 of 2023
Decided On : 29-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : TPS HARSHA
For the Respondent: GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

The court affirmed the entitlement to interest for delayed payment under Article 226, emphasizing procedural adherence in contract law while mandating adherence to dispute resolution mechanisms as per the agreement.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Contract law - Price adjustment clauses - Claim for price adjustment on labour and materials under Agreement No.LS 1/2005-2006 since 2005 and the subsequent rejection of said claims based on internal procedures were contested - The respondents failed to release Rs.80,26,24,011/- despite recognition of payment due, leading to aggrieved writ petition. (Paras 1-14)

(B) Dispute resolution - The discretion to award interest following delayed payments is analyzed, noting principles from commercial transactions but requiring detailed adjudication to assess circumstances surrounding delays and the necessity for the dispute adjudication board based on contract clauses. (Paras 10-12)

(C) State intervention and administrative processes - The reasons provided for delays in payment were systemic and procedural rather than arbitrary actions, with the assessment linked to specific contract conditions regarding price variation and cost adjustments. (Paras 5-11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed for Rs.80.26 crores price adjustment under specified contract terms, citing long delays in payment despite court orders. The respondents cited procedural reasons for delays.

Findings of Court:
The court ordered the respondents to pay Rs.80,26,24,211/- with 6% interest for the delayed amount from the date specified due to non-compliance with prior orders.

Issues: The key issues involve the validity of the price adjustments, the right to compensation for delayed payments, and the role of established procedures for resolving disputes under the contract.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while it can grant interest for delays in payment, determining the specifics requires a deeper inquiry into whether delays were intentional or procedural, thereby invoking dispute resolution mechanisms as per the contract clauses.

Result: Writ petition allowed in part, with directions regarding payment and interest.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's entitlement to price adjustment (Para 1)
2. counterarguments regarding payment disputes (Para 3)

ORDER :

B. Vijaysen Reddy, J.

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not releasing the admitted and approved amount of Rs.80,26,24,011/- (Rupees eighty crores twenty six lakhs twenty four thousand and eleven only) to the petitioner (Joint Venture) for price adjustment towards labour and other materials as per the conditions of the Agreement No.LS 1/2005-2006 dated 03.04.2005 and orders of this Court in W.P. No.40000 of 2012 dated 23.03.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and for a consequential direction to the respondents to release the amount along with interest.

2.1. In the tender process floated by the respondents for execution of Stage II, Phase I of Sripada Sagar Project - Investigation, soil exploration, Design, Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of Pumping Machinery, Transformers, Substations, Rising Mains, including construction of Pump Houses, all Civil Structures, CM & CD works, Delivery Cisterns etc., to develop about 2.00 lakh acres of ayacut under Sripada Sagar Project near Yellampalli Village, Ramagundam Mandal in the up-land area of erstwhile Karimnagar District (Sripada Sagar Project), the petitioner was declared as successful bidder.

2.2. Project Agreement No.LS 1/2005-2006 dated 03.04.2005 was entered into between the petitioner and respondents. General Conditions of Contract (GCC) were incorporated into the Agreement between the petitioner and the respondents.

2.3. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Clause 13.8 of the GCC, the petitioner is entitled to price adjustment from the respondents in the event of increase in rates and prices of labour, cement, steel, fuel, lubricants and other materials. Accordingly, the petitioner, right from October 2005, was submitting running account bills with price adjustment for the aforesaid items in terms of GCC and agreement conditions. There was exchange of correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents regarding price adjustment. As there was dispute regarding price adjustment, the petitioner filed W.P. No.40000 of 2012 before this Court against the respondents to declare the letter dated 03.02.2012 and the internal proceedings dated 16.11.2009 whereby the petitioner’s price adjustment claim was rejected as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. W.P. No.40000 of2012 was allowed by this Court by the order dated 23.03.2022 directing the respondents to verify the claim of the petitioner for price adjustment towards labour and other materials and pay the amount as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

2.4. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations for payment of price adjustment towards labour and other materials as directed by this Court in W.P. No.40000 of 2012. Upon receipt of the petitioner’s request vide letter dated 15.10.2022, the Government vide Memo dated 27.10.2022 requested respondent No.3 - Engineer-in- Chief (General), Irrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, to take necessary action for release of pending payment of price adjustment towards labour and other materials. Respondent No.7 - Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Dharoor Camp, Jagitial, vide Letter No.SE/IC/JGL/DSE/ DEE-1/AEE-2/338/H dated 19.06.2023 to respondent No.5 - the Chief Engineer, I&CADD, Dharoor Camp, Jagitial, informed that the verified amount of Rs.80.26 crores (Rs.80,26,24,011/-) is the amount towards price adjustment payable to the petitioner and requested for taking further necessary action. In turn, respondent No.5 vide Letter No.CE(Irrigation)/TS/T2/SYP Price escalation/2023/621 dated 28.06.2023 verified and requested respondent No.3 to address the Government for taking further necessary action.

2.5. It is submitted that subsequently respondent No.3 vide Letter

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