Eagle Infra India Limited vs Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Limited

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1908

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ananda Sen, J
Eagle Infra India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Limited – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.1563 of 2025

Important Points

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for contractual money claims where the debt is admitted or where disputed facts do not require elaborate evidence; furthermore, the voluntary release of a performance bank guarantee during litigation acts as a binding conduct-based admission of satisfactory contract performance.

Subject

Contract Law - Admitted Contractual Dues

Act Referred

Constitution of India: Art.226
Companies Act, 2013: S.2(20)

Headnote

(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Writ petition maintainable for money claims arising out of contractual obligations - No absolute bar to entertaining such petitions even when there are disputed questions of fact - Exercise of discretion depends on whether facts require elaborate recording of evidence - Where dues are admitted, withholding payment constitutes arbitrary action by the state instrumentality. (Paras 6.1 - 6.7)

(B) Contractual Dispute - Admission by conduct - Where a state instrumentality releases a performance guarantee during pendency of litigation, it implies acknowledgment of satisfactory performance of the contract, thereby undermining any claims of poor quality of work or outstanding defects. (Paras 5.1 - 5.3, 9, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was awarded a rejuvenation project including a five-year operation and maintenance (O&M) period. Although the petitioner completed the project and O&M obligations, the respondent failed to release final bills, O&M dues, and the Performance Bank Guarantee. The petitioner continued work post-contract expiration due to the respondent's failure to take possession. The respondent alleged poor quality and lack of funds, which the court observed were unsupported by evidence and contradicted by the respondent's own conduct in releasing the bank guarantee.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent's refusal to pay was arbitrary and that the existence of an arbitration clause did not bar writ jurisdiction when the dispute was feigned and the amounts were clearly due. The respondent was directed to pay the outstanding bills and maintenance charges for the period of continued work with interest.

Issues: Whether a writ petition is maintainable for a money claim involving disputed facts; and whether the petitioner is entitled to payment for maintenance work performed beyond the contractual period due to the respondent's failure to take over the site.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition under Art. 226 is maintainable for monetary claims where the debt is admitted or where the dispute does not require complex evidence. Furthermore, a respondent's conduct in releasing a performance guarantee serves as a binding admission that work was completed satisfactorily, precluding later claims regarding inferior quality.

Result: Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to release payments and interest within sixty days.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nitin Kr. Pasari
For the Respondents: Krishna Murari, Raj Vardhan

JUDGMENT

CAV on : 09/07/2026 Pronounced on : 15/07/2026

At the outset it is relevant to note that this case was initially taken up by the Division Bench, as all tender matters, as per the roster, were to be heard by the Division Bench. After the change of roster, matters relating to admitted contractual dues are to be heard by the Single Bench, thus this matter has been listed before this Court.

Learned counsel Mr. Krishna Murari, appeared through virtual mode. There is no complaint with regard to quality or clarity in the audio and the video.

RELIEF SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER IN THIS WRIT PETITION :-

"(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing upon the Respondents to show cause as to how and under what authority of law, the running bills, being R.A. No. 29 is not being released, though works have been completed to the satisfaction of the Respondents.

(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing upon the Respondents to show cause as to how and under what authority of law, the dues of the petitioner with regard to the Operation & Maintenance work is not being released though works have been completed to the satisfaction of the Respondents.

(c) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing upon the Respondents to forthwith release the pending dues of the petitioner alongwith applicable interest towards the running bills as also the bills pertaining to Operation and Maintenance work.

(d) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing upon the respondent to make payment for the period between 01.11.2023 till date, which are the extra months of working without there being any extension of agreement and for non-taking over of the site in question, though the petitioner has making repeated requests for the same.

(e) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing upon the respondent to release the Bank Guarantee of the petitioner, since after the completion of the agreement viz., operation & maintenance, which came to end on 31.10.2023, there is no reason for the respondent to keep the Bank Guarantee of the petitioner alive, which is an extra burden upon the petitioner."

GRIEVANCES OF THE PETITIONER :-

The case of petitioner is that the petitioner was awarded a contract in 2015 by JUIDCO for the Harmu River rejuvenation project, including five years of Operation & Maintenance (O & M). The petitioner completed the project on 31.10.2018 and O & M work on 31.10.2023, but JUIDCO allegedly failed to release the final running bill (R.A. Bill No. 29), O&M dues, payment for work performed after 31.10.2023 due to non-handing over of the site, and also did not release the Bank Guarantee, despite successful completion of the contract. Dispute repeated representations and JUIDCO's acknowledgment that the work had been completed and the final bill was under scrutiny, payment was withheld. Thus, the petitioner has approached this Court filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to release the admitted dues of the petitioner and also release the Bank Guarantee.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER :-

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was awarded the contract pursuant to a valid tender process and the petitioner executed the entire project along with the Operation and Maintenance obligations. The respondents themselves issued the Completion Certificate and subsequently by letter dated 29.01.2024, acknowledged that the project, as well as the O&M period, had been completed and that the final bill was under scrutiny. Once completion of work has been admitted, there remains no justification for withholding the final running bill, O&M dues and other consequential payments. No defect, breach of contract or deficiency has ever been communicated to the petitioner and neither they reject the petitioner's bills nor passed any order assigning reasons for withholding payment