- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
The State Of M.P. & Anr v. Anshuman Shukla
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent was awarded a contract for the construction of three A-Type quarters for High Court Judges in Civil Lines, Jabalpur, with a total contract value of 34 lacs. Although the work was executed, delays occurred, and extensions of time were granted. After completion, the respondent’s claim remained undecided, prompting a reference under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, for a claim of Rs. 14,51,153/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,05,624/- with 12% interest per annum. The State filed this civil revision under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983, challenging the award pertaining to claims numbered 8, 10, and 11.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding Claim No. 8 related to the release of withheld amount of Rs. 51,947/- without formal refund procedures being completed.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding Claim No. 10 for the release of earnest money and security deposit amounting to Rs. 2,05,943/- without evidence of forfeiture.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding Claim No. 11 regarding escalation cost of Rs. 3,47,734/- despite pending penalty decisions related to extension of time.
- Whether the Tribunal’s overall award of Rs. 6,05,624/- along with interest involved any error warranting interference under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant (State) argued that the Tribunal committed errors in awarding various claims including the withheld amount, earnest money, security deposit, and escalation costs.
- It was contended that these awards were erroneous and thus warranted interference by the revisional court.
Respondent's Arguments
- The respondent contended that the Tribunal’s discretion was rightly exercised based on admissions by the petitioners and the failure of officers to complete required formalities in time.
- It was argued that no evidence existed to justify withholding the amounts claimed, and the Tribunal’s findings were neither perverse nor illegal.
- The respondent emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the court under Section 19, asserting that no substantial question of law arose to warrant interference.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined each claim in detail as follows:
- Claim No. 8: The withheld amount of Rs. 51,947/- was related to running bills for testing roof leakage and GI pipe lines. The Tribunal found no evidence of forfeiture or defects requiring withholding and noted the Executive Engineer failed to complete refund formalities without justification. Hence, withholding was unjustified.
- Claim No. 10: The earnest money and security deposit of Rs. 2,05,943/- were held refundable after verification, with no evidence of forfeiture. The Tribunal found no justifiable reason to withhold these amounts and ordered their refund.
- Claim No. 11: The escalation cost of Rs. 3,47,734/- up to the 11th running bill was unpaid. Although payments beyond the 11th bill depended on penalty decisions for extension of time, no penalty was imposed or proven. Therefore, withholding this amount was unjustified.
The court concluded that the Tribunal’s approach was reasonable, based on facts and admissions, and did not amount to perversity, illegality, or error warranting interference under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983.
Holding and Implications
The revision filed by the State under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983 is dismissed.
The decision upholds the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 6,05,624/- along with interest and the specific claims related to withheld amounts, earnest money, security deposits, and escalation costs. No new precedent was established, and the direct effect is that the respondent’s claims as awarded by the Tribunal stand confirmed without interference.
(29-07-2015) This is a civil revision filed under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983.
2. Respondent was awarded a contract for construction of three A-Type quarters for High Court Judges in Civil Lines, Jabalpur. Total amount of contract was 34 lacs. Work was executed and as execution work was not undertaken in time, extension of time was granted from time to time. Thereafter, after the work was completed and when the claim of the respondent was not decided, a reference was made under Section 7 of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 and a claim of Rs.14,51,153/- was made by respondent Anshuman Shukla.
3. The Tribunal considered the matter and against claim of Rs.14,51,153/-, a claim of Rs.6,05,624/- alongwith interest @12% per annum has been awarded, this revision under Section 19 has been filed by the State.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find in this revision has been filed challenging the award allowing claim Nos. 8, 10 and 11. Claim No.8 pertains to release of withheld amount of Rs.51,947/-. Claim No.10 pertains to release of earnest money and security deposit of Rs.2,05,943/- and claim No.11 pertains to grant of escalation cost to the tune of Rs.3,47,734/-.
5. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Govt. Advocate took us through the award, the findings recorded and tied to indicate that apart from the above three claims even in allowing various amounts to the tune of Rs.6,05,624/- an error has been committed by the Tribunal and therefore, interference should be made.
6. Shri V.R.Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent refuted the aforesaid and took us through the reasons given by the Tribunal in paras 15, 17 and 18 pertaining to Claim Nos. 8, 10 and 11 and indicated that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal is based on the admission of the petitioners themselves and the fact that the officer did not take steps within time, under such circumstances discretion exercised in awarding amount cannot be termed as perverse, illegal and giving rise to substantial question of law warranting consideration exercising the limited jurisdiction available to this court under Section 19 of the Adhiniyam.
7. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and we find that with regard to Claim No.8 pertaining to release of withheld amount of Rs. 51,947/-, this amount was withheld on account of various running bills for testing of roof against leakage and testing of GI Pipe lines. It was the case of the petitioner that the amount is refundable in case the petitioner applies to the Executive Engineer and the amount will be refundable after due verification. However, taking note of the fact that that formalities of refund has not been completed, amount was not paid. The Tribunal found that if the formality was to be completed and the Executive Engineer did not complete the formality without any justification or reason, the amount cannot be withheld. The Tribunal however has found that there is no order of the respondents on record, forfeiting this amount nor there is any evidence that the works for which the amounts were withheld had any defect and the petitioner is liable to remove some defects. In doing so, we find that no error has been committed by the Tribunal warranting reconsideration in a proceedings under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam 1983. Similarly with regard to claim no.10 in respect of release of earnest money and security deposit of Rs.2,05,943, it has been held that this amount was refundable after due verification and there is no evidence to prove that the respondents have forfeited this amount. However, during the proceedings, no justifiable reason was given for withholding the amount and therefore, the Tribunal has allowed this claim and held that the respondents should refund the same. In doing so, the Tribunal has not committed any error. Similarly with regard to claim no.11 in respect of price escalation of Rs.3,47,734/- it was found that this was escalation charge upto 11th running bill has not been paid to the petitioner and payments of escalation beyond 11th running bill will be [paid after Chief Engineer decided penalty for extension of time. The respondents have not produced any evidence to establish that penalty was imposed on the petitioner due to delay in the work, they have admitted that petitioner has not paid escalation charges beyond 11th running account bill and payment of escalation beyond 11 running account bill will be paid after certain formalities, Therefore, the Tribunal has held that the petitioner is entitled to receive this amount against the price escalation. There was nothing to say that extension of time granted for penalty was imposed and therefore, the Chief Engineer has not decided the matter. There is no justification for withholding of this amount and therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing this claim.
7. Accordingly, in view of the above, and the reasons given by the Tribunal and the manner in which the claim has been decided, we find that the Tribunal has adopted reasonable approach in deciding the claim, which cannot be termed as perverse, erroneous or illegal to such extent that interference should be made in a proceeding under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983.
8. In view of the above, this revision stands dismissed.
Alert