Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Guarantee Period as Defect Liability & Contractual Period The guarantee period, often termed as the Defects Liability Period (DLP), is explicitly linked to the contract’s performance and liability for defects. Several sources clarify that the guarantee or defect liability period is a distinct phase following the completion of work, during which the contractor remains liable for repairs and defects. For example, ["PG Setty Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd. VS Managing Director Karnataka State Police Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation - Karnataka"] states, The Defects Liability Period shall mean the period after the issue of certificate of completion of work by the Engineer-in-charge during which the structure has to function without any trouble or defects. Similarly, ["Alok Kumar Choubey VS State of M. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 233"] notes, the defect liability period/maintenance guarantee period is two years from the date of completion of the work, indicating that the guarantee period is a specific, contractual phase separate from the main agreement period.
Guarantee Period and Contract Duration Are Not Always Synonymous Many sources emphasize that the guarantee or defect liability period is a period of liability that may extend beyond the contractual execution period but is not necessarily treated as part of the original agreement's contractual period. For instance, ["C-TWO INFRA STRUCTURE PVT LTD. vs THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER II, PWD ROADS MAINTENANCE SUBDIVISION, PALAKKAD CITY - Kerala"] discusses government orders that specify the retention of performance guarantees till the expiry of Defects Liability Period, which is a separate phase from the contract's primary period.
Legal and Administrative Clarifications Courts and administrative orders frequently treat the guarantee or defect liability period as a separate phase that extends the contractor’s liability but does not automatically merge with the agreement period. For example, ["Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited vs Banking Ombudsman - Gauhati"] states, the bank guarantee issued by a bank after the party at the time of executing the contract... shall remain in full force and effect during the period that would be taken for the performance of the said Agreement, implying a distinct period of validity aligned with the guarantee, not necessarily the entire contractual period.
Retention and Release of Guarantee Post-Contract Multiple references, such as ["C-TWO INFRA STRUCTURE PVT LTD. vs THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER II, PWD ROADS MAINTENANCE SUBDIVISION, PALAKKAD CITY - Kerala"], highlight that the performance guarantee is retained until the defect liability period expires, and its release is contingent upon satisfying that period's conditions. The expiry of the guarantee period often correlates with the conclusion of the contractor’s liability, not the main contract’s duration.
Based on the provided sources, the guarantee period under public work (commonly the defect liability or performance guarantee) is generally treated as a separate contractual phase that extends beyond the main agreement period. It is not automatically considered part of the entire agreement but is linked to the contractor’s ongoing liability for defects and performance during that specific period. The guarantee's validity, retention, and release are governed by the terms of the agreement and relevant government orders, which specify that the guarantee remains in force until the expiry of the defect liability period, and not necessarily the entire contractual term.
Therefore, the guarantee period under public work contracts should be treated as a distinct period of liability, separate from the primary agreement period, although closely related.
In the complex world of public works contracts, contractors and authorities often grapple with timelines—especially when it comes to guarantee periods and defect liability periods. A common question arises: whether the guarantee period under the public work has to be treated as period of the agreement. This issue can lead to disputes over performance security, refunds, and forfeitures, potentially costing parties significant time and money.
This blog post dives into a pivotal court ruling and related cases to clarify how these periods are typically interpreted. While contracts vary, understanding contractual language is key to avoiding pitfalls. Note: This is general information based on reported judgments and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Public works contracts, such as road improvements or infrastructure projects, usually include:- Defect Liability Period (DLP): A maintenance phase post-completion where the contractor fixes defects. Typically 1-2 years Alok Kumar Choubey VS State of M. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 233.- Guarantee Period: Often tied to performance security (like bank guarantees), which secures compliance during DLP and sometimes beyond.
These are not automatically the same as the overall agreement period. The agreement covers execution, while guarantee focuses on post-completion assurance. Courts emphasize strict contractual interpretation—extraneous factors like no reported defects don't shorten the guarantee unless specified Alok Kumar Choubey VS State of M. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 233.
In a key case, the contract stipulated a two-year DLP from completion (certified 30.5.2016, ending 7.3.2018) and performance guarantee valid for three months beyond DLP (until 7.6.2018) per Clause 29 Alok Kumar Choubey VS State of M. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 233.
The petitioner sought early security refund, arguing no defects during DLP meant guarantee ended then. The respondent countered with the explicit clause. The court held:
The performance guarantee (security) shall remain valid for a period of three months beyond the completion of the defect liability period Alok Kumar Choubey VS State of M. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 233.
Key findings:- Guarantee validity is contractually fixed, not extended indefinitely.- Absence of defects doesn't trigger automatic release.- Forfeiture justified if obligations unmet within the full period (e.g., rectifying late defects) Alok Kumar Choubey VS State of M. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 233.
This reinforces that guarantee isn't synonymous with the agreement period—it's a tailored extension for security.
Courts apply plain language:- DLP: two years from the date of completion Alok Kumar Choubey VS State of M. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 233.- Guarantee: Additional buffer post-DLP, not merging into agreement tenure.
Petitioner's claim failed as it ignored Clause 29. Generally, clear clauses override arguments for early release unless contracts specify otherwise (e.g., automatic refund post-DLP) Alok Kumar Choubey VS State of M. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 233.
Other judgments highlight nuances in handling guarantees, reinforcing contract primacy.
In a road improvement tender (KIIFB Work 2016-2017), the court directed release of half the performance guarantee upon an Indemnity Bond, despite government orders. It stressed:
Contractual obligations must be honored, and a contractor is entitled to the release of Performance Guarantee upon fulfilling specified conditions EKK Infrastructure Limited vs Kerala Road Fund Board - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 1617.
This shows release may occur post-DLP if conditions met, but withholding per contract (like extra months) holds if explicit.
For a flyover consultancy, no demand within validity voided claims, even with extended claim periods:
To arise a right under the Bank Guarantee Agreement, a demand has to be made within the period of validity of the Agreement Cochin Port Trust, Rep. by its Chief Engineer VS Bank of India, Dadar (West) Branch, Mumbai - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 277.
Aligns with public works: Act within stipulated guarantee timelines or risk forfeiture.
Petitioner furnished guarantees but faced agreement delays. Courts may direct execution if pre-requisites met, but guarantee periods remain contract-bound.
Unilateral cancellations without signed agreements fail Article 14 claims. Public authorities must honor terms:
Public authorities must act fairly and cannot arbitrarily terminate contracts without justification R.K. Tech a proprietorship firm, through its proprietor Mr. Raj Kumar Tripathi vs State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Election Department, Government of Bihar, Patna - 2025 Supreme(Pat) 677.
Emphasizes mutual consent for extensions beyond standard periods.
Bank guarantees can replace fixed deposits:
A bank guarantee may serve as an adequate substitute for a fixed deposit in fulfilling performance guarantee requirements TOMCO ENGINEERING PVT LTD vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28758.
Useful for contractors navigating validity extensions.
Extended periods count as original for escalation, per contract:
The extended period shall be regarded as period fixed for completion of the work as per the original agreement The Chief Engineer, National Highways, Madras 600 006 VS Gammon India Ltd. , & Another - 2007 Supreme(Mad) 4014.
Guarantee/DLP often follows suit unless differentiated.
Exceptions: If contracts allow refund post-DLP sans extension, claims strengthen EKK Infrastructure Limited vs Kerala Road Fund Board - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 1617. Courts won't rewrite terms.
For tailored advice, engage legal experts. Stay informed on public works law to safeguard interests.
References: Primary analysis from Alok Kumar Choubey VS State of M. P. - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 233, supplemented by EKK Infrastructure Limited vs Kerala Road Fund Board - 2025 Supreme(Ker) 1617, Cochin Port Trust, Rep. by its Chief Engineer VS Bank of India, Dadar (West) Branch, Mumbai - 2021 Supreme(Ker) 277, R.K. Tech a proprietorship firm, through its proprietor Mr. Raj Kumar Tripathi vs State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Election Department, Government of Bihar, Patna - 2025 Supreme(Pat) 677, TOMCO ENGINEERING PVT LTD vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER - 2018 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28758, The Chief Engineer, National Highways, Madras 600 006 VS Gammon India Ltd. , & Another - 2007 Supreme(Mad) 4014, TSR Nirmaan Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Telangana - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 3475.
#PublicWorksLaw #GuaranteePeriod #ContractLaw
The petitioner is an A Class Contractor in the Public Works Department. The respondents had invited bids for the work, namely KIIFB Work 2016-2017 improvements to Udumbanchola Chithirapuram Road (Km 0/000 to 45/880) as per the Notice Inviting Tender dated 17.08.2019. 2. ... The contention of the Standing Counsel is that since as per Exts.P11 and P12 Government Orders, the Performance Guarantee can be released only after the period of defect liability and the defect liability period in ....
The opposite party No.6 is also represented and corroborates the fact that the works contract has been executed by entering into an agreement and in fact he has taken all possible steps to commence the work. 5.1. ... We are in fix whether the proposition of law laid down in the above report has any nexus to the present facts. ... Thirdly, immediately after obtaining the bank guarantee the approach was made at a time when no steps were taken for cancellation nor any agreement was executed in favour of th....
Despite Petitioner fulfilling all pre- requisites under the tender conditions, including furnishing Performance Bank Guarantee and Additional Performance Bank Guarantee on 12.06.2020, Respondent No.2 failed to execute the formal agreement within the original completion period. ... time of approximately six months beyond the original agreement period of nine months. ... It is contended that Petitioner was required to furnish Performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.1,21,12,608....
Defects Liability Period: The agency should stand guarantee for the quality of work and performance for the work executed during Defects Liability period. ... The issue now is whether the Corporation was justified in encashing the Bank guarantee using the defect liability period clause in the agreement. 10. ... Defects Liability period shall mean the period after the issue of certificate of comple....
According to the petitioner, the said period expired on 21.06.2023. Despite the fact that the tenure of the agreement is over, the amount of performance guarantee has not been released to the petitioner. ... The only question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents are justified in retaining the performance guarantee even at this point of time. Ext.R3(a) is a Government Order, which is applicable to the contract in question. ... The road damages once rectified, again damages within 6 mo....
Further, the respondent has taken the performance bank guarantee having validity for a period of three years for the reason that as per Clause-7 of the NIT, the maximum period for which work was to be allotted was three years, extendable every year, having found the performance of the party satisfactory ... In fact, NIT was only for a period of one year, which can be extended upto a period of three years, if the work is found satisfactory. ... Further, though the peti....
long as the work under the contract was successfully commissioned or the amounts due under the bank guarantee were paid or an injunction could issue to the Bank to so renew the period of the bank guarantee. ..... .....It needs to be remembered that a bank guarantee issued by a bank after the party at ... We, (Name of the Bank) further Agree that the guarantee herein contained shall remain in full force and effect during the period that would be taken for the performan....
Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that, as was required in the prevalent circumstances, the petitioner had been initially afforded 7 days notice period and thereafter, he was afforded another 48 hours notice period. ... The issue, as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to recover his security deposit and the performance guarantee would depend upon an adjudication regarding the legality of the order of termination/rescinding the contract. ... He submitted that the issue of whether....
The respondents have wrongly relied on Clause 29 of the agreement and the corresponding clause of the contract data and have treated the additional period of three months, beyond the period of two years, also as part of the defect liability period/maintenance guarantee period. ... The time period for maintenance of the constructed work prescribed in the said agreement was two years from the date of completion of th....
However, in public interest, execution of agreement pertaining to the work awarded to the petitioner is the vital requirement. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of with suitable directions. ... If the petitioner provides a bank guarantee for the entire amount of the performance guarantee within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, necessary agreement shall be executed by the respondents with the petitioner. ... The ....
To arise a right under the Bank Guarantee Agreement, a demand has to be made within the period of validity of the Agreement. Having not made any demand within the validity period of the Bank Guarantee, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the Guarantee during the claim period after the expiry of the validity period of the Bank Guarantee. The extended period of claim provided for under Exception 3 to Section 28 of the Contract Act is therefore intended for extinguishment of the rights or discharge of any party from any liability under a Bank Guarantee/agreement.
So, the extended period shall be regarded as period fixed for completion of the work as per the original agreement. It is also provided that the period of extension shall be considered in continuation of the original operative period. In addition to that the agreement provided that for the extension of time granted for any other reason whatsoever other than those provided in the Gammon India Limited letters No.P.-6139 E dated 211. 1982 and Tm.G 228 dated 21.02.1983 no adjustment in the contract price shall be made on account of variation in the price of materials, P.O.L., a....
Nothing has been shown to this Court as to in what manner the said finding is contrary to the mandate of the arbitrator. I may only state that as per agreement, guarantee period was 12 months. As noted above, contract was completed by 15.03.1995.
The Government wants to regularize them on the basis of this continuity. The purpose of those schemes is different and the funds are from a source other than of the department. In that it does not want to include the period for which these persons have put in work for Employment Guarantee Schemes. If that period is excluded while assessing the continued requirement for the departmental work, no fault can be found in that.
When there is warranty, he would be a consumer so far as service under the warranty is concerned. The decision held that, that will depend upon whether there was warranty as part of a composite contract of supply and erection of the machinery and its maintenance for a period. The said contention, therefore, is liable to be overruled. Here, the work order itself provides for issue of guarantee for a period of 12 months.
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
