Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1842
PATNA HIGH COURT
RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA, J
M/S Vishwanath Singh Vinay A Partnership Firm through its Power of Attorney Holder Sri Bipin Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION No. 41 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Prasoon Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Sharan Singh, Mr. Parth Gaurav, Ms. Pallavi Pandey
Voluntary acceptance of a final contract bill without objection amounts to full settlement, precluding any later claims unless coercion or undue influence is evidenced.
Headnote:(A) Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 - Section 13 - Civil revision application against dismissal of arbitration reference regarding extra charges due to contract disruption - Tribunal ruled that prior acceptance of final bill constituted full and final settlement, barring further claims. (Paras 1, 8, 18)
(B) Arbitration - Finality of acceptance - Voluntary acceptance of final bill without protest precludes subsequent claims; established through numerous judicial precedents indicating that acceptance merges all claims. (Paras 8, 10)
(C) Administrative Law - Authority in contracts - Notes by engineers or consultants lacking formal approval do not confer enforceable rights or obligations; financial liabilities must derive from sanctioned orders. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after accepting a final bill for a construction project, sought additional reimbursement for extra carriage costs arising from the collapse of a bridge, which disrupted transportation routes. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, stating previous acceptance without objection barred further disputes.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's findings indicated no sanctioned alteration of terms, and the petitioner’s claim was unsubstantiated by proper administrative approvals or contemporaneous protests.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal justifiably dismissed the petitioner’s claim based on previous acceptance of the final bill without protest.
Ratio Decidendi: Acceptance of a final bill without objection equates to full settlement of claims, and any subsequent claims are rendered invalid unless demonstrating coercion or undue influence.
Result: Civil Revision Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA CAV ORDER
19 15-12-2025 This civil revision application is filed under Section 13 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act , 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 2008) for setting aside the awards passed by the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Patna, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by which the Tribunal has dismissed the Reference Case No. 59 of 2014, holding that the petitioner had already accepted the final bill in full and final settlement and therefore had no remaining dispute or entitlement to claim any additional amount.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner was awarded the work of constructing a “Fertilizer- cum-Pesticides Bio-Control Laboratory” at Saharsa pursuant to Tender Notice No. 01 of 2010, and the work order was issued in his favour on 04.03.2010. A formal agreement bearing No. 04F2/2010-11 dated 09.03.2010 was executed, fixing the contract value at Rs. 1,29,71,052.56 and the completion period at one year. Under the agreement, the sanctioned lead for carriage of coarse sand and stone chips was fixed at 149 km from Kuel and 168 km from Jamalpur, respectively. The petitioner initially procured materials strictly in accordance with the sanctioned leads; however, during execution of the work, the Dumari/B.P. Mandal bridge collapsed on 30.08.2010, resulting in a complete ban on the movement of heavy vehicles. Due to this disruption, it became impossible to transport materials from the originally sanctioned sources. The petitioner immediately informed the authorities on 08.09.2010, and upon site inspection on 15.09.2010, the respondent-consultant directed the petitioner to procure the materials through an alternative route via Purnea. The delay arising from the disruption was condoned, and the time for completion was accordingly extended. After completion of the work, although the final bill was prepared, the petitioner was not granted payment for the extra carriage cost occasioned by the mandatory change in route. Despite several representations dated 07.10.2013 and 01.03.2014, the claim remained unpaid, compelling the petitioner to file Reference Case No. 59 of 2014 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 22.06.2022, rejected the petitioner’s claim for extra lead charges. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision.
4. Further stated by the petitioner that the dispute arose between the parties in relation to said contract, the petitioner filed Reference case no. 59 of 2014 before the learned tribunal under Section 9 of the Act, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.06.2022. Learned petitioner demanded an award of Rs. 21,19,241.47. The Learned Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s claim for extra lead charges on the basis that the petitioner had already received the agreement value without any objection, and thereafter, only he raised the present claim without there being any order or direction by the respondent authorities.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the material evidence demonstrating that the sanctioned routes for transporting sand and stone chips became unusable due to the collapse of the Dumari bridge. This disruption was promptly reported and independently verified by the respondent authorities, following which the Chief Consultant issued written directions in the site order register requiring procurement of materials through Purnea, resulting in a significantly longer lead and unavoidable additional expenditure. The petitioner completed the work strictly as instructed and repeatedly sought reimbursement of the extra carriage cost; however, despite earlier assurances, the respondents wrongfully denied the claim. The inconsistencies in the counter affidavit further reveal
