High CourtsDivision Bench

M/s Shapers Construction Ltd. vs State of M.P. and others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 21 September 2012 · Citation: (2012) 09 MP CK 0275

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shantanu Kemkar, J · Prakash Shrivastava, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 8887 of 2012
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 391 words

Shantanu Kemkar, J.—Heard on the question of admission. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking refund of the amount of Rs. 12,36,783/- deducted by the fourth respondent from the petitioner''s final bill.

2.

Briefly stated the petitioner contractor was awarded work namely improvement of up gradation work (a) Ratlam Malwa Road length 15 Km, (b) Khachrod Malwa Road length 13.175 Km. On being awarded the aforesaid contract, the contract document was executed between the petitioner and the fourth respondent on 12.08.2009. After completion of the work at the time of payment of the amount from the final bill dated 13.06.2012, the respondents deducted the amount of Rs. 12,36,783/-. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition.

3.

The case of the petitioner is that the recovery of the aforesaid amount from the petitioner''s final bill is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of B.B. Verma and Another and S.C. Batra and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Another, . The petitioner has also placed reliance on the Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s T.R. Trahan Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. and another in Writ Petition No. 5421/09 decided on 01.09.2009.

4.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the judgments of which reliance has been placed, we find no ground to interfere into the matter.

5.

The cases on which reliance has been placed are entirely on different footing. In those cases, the contract was terminated and recovery was ordered without their being any adjudication by the competent authority.

6.

In the present case, the amount has been recovered from final bill after completion of the work. In the circumstances, in case the petitioner feels that some illegal recovery has been made from final bill the petitioner has remedies available as per the contract document. The petitioner without exhausting the available departmental remedies and the remedies of arbitration has filed this petition. In the circumstances, in our considered view no case is made out to interfere into the matter at this stage. As a result the petition fails and is hereby dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies as may be available to it in accordance with law.