Abhinav Builders And Contractors vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 4691 MP

                                                                           1                              WP-23318-2017
                                                The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                           WP-23318-2017
                                           (ABHINAV BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                                       7
                                       Jabalpur, Dated : 25-08-2021
                                               Heard through Video Conferencing.
                                               Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                                               Shri Pradeep Singh, learned Government Advocate for the State.
                                               Shri Abhishek Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that the

work order Annexure P/5 was issued to the petitioner and undisputedly the work has also been completed by the petitioner and it was the work of the respondent No.2, who had issued the cheque of Rs.22 Lacs in favour of the respondent No.5, which is reflected in the communication dated 2.6.2015 sent by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.5. Though the respondent No.5 has received the amount of Rs.22 Lacs and the work has also been completed long back yet no payment has been made to the petitioner till now and while passing the impugned order dated 7.2.2017, the Collector has raised various objections without taking note of the aforesaid aspect of the

matter. He has also submitted that in view of Section 70 of the Contract Act as also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramesh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab and others (2012) 12 SCC 331, the petitioner is entitled to payment of full amount along with interest and cost as unnecessary harassment has been caused to the petitioner.

The stand of counsel for the State is that no details relating to NIT and agreement are available and the petitioner had colluded with the concerned CMHO but learned counsel for the State is not in a position to answer the query of this Court that if the work is completed and the amount has been deposited by the respondent No.2 with the respondent No.5 for payment to the petitioner then why uptil now the payment has not been made specially Signature Not Verified SAN when the liability of the payment is not on the State but the State is only acting

Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2021.08.25 18:02:45 IST 2 WP-23318-2017 as a medium for making the payment.

The stand of Shri Abhishek Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is that the work has been completed and the amount has been deposited with the respondent No.5.

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 prays for short adjournment to place the stand of the respondent No.2 on record in writing

within one week.

List in the week commencing 6.9.2021.

(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE

pp

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2021.08.25 18:02:45 IST