Bombay High Court Allows Contractor's Suit for Recovery of Unpaid Amounts and Interest in Construction Contract Dispute. Holds that Delayed Payments Attract Interest Under Section 61 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and Excess Recovery from Mobilisation Advance Must Be Refunded.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiff, M/s Ajay Deep Construction Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against the Maharashtra State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Ltd. for recovery of Rs.1,09,78,024 together with interest. The dispute arose from a construction contract for building 650 quarters for policemen at Amravati. The plaintiff completed the work within the stipulated time and the quality was undisputed. The plaintiff claimed payment for three unpaid items of work: extra items, star rate items, and escalation on star rate items. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed refund of excess interest recovered by the defendant from mobilisation advance, and interest on delayed payments of running account bills, escalation bills, and the final bill. The defendant contested the claims, arguing that the unpaid items were not due under the contract, the mobilisation advance interest was correctly recovered, and there was no stipulated date for payment of running bills. The court framed issues and after considering evidence, held that the plaintiff was entitled to payment for the three unpaid items as the work was completed and accepted. The court also held that the defendant could only recover interest on mobilisation advance at the contracted rate of 12% per annum, not 18%, and must refund the excess. Regarding delayed payments, the court found that the contract specified payment periods and the defendant's delays entitled the plaintiff to interest under Section 61 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court awarded interest at 12% per annum on delayed payments of running account bills, escalation bills, and the final bill. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff with costs.

Headnote

A) Contract Law - Construction Contract - Unpaid Work Items - The court considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to payment for three specific items of work (extra items, star rate items, and escalation on star rate items) which were not paid by the defendant. The court held that the plaintiff had completed the work and the defendant had accepted the benefit, thus the plaintiff was entitled to payment for these items as per the contract rates and recommendations of the project management consultant. (Paras 5-10)

B) Contract Law - Mobilisation Advance - Recovery of Interest - The court examined whether the defendant was entitled to recover interest on mobilisation advance at 18% per annum when the contract stipulated interest at 12% per annum. The court held that the defendant could only recover interest at the contracted rate of 12% and must refund the excess recovered. (Paras 11-13)

C) Interest Law - Delayed Payments - Running Account Bills and Escalation Bills - The court determined whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on delayed payments of running account bills and escalation bills. The court held that the contract provided for payment within a specified period, and the defendant's delay in making payments entitled the plaintiff to interest under Section 61 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The court awarded interest at 12% per annum on delayed payments. (Paras 14-18)

D) Interest Law - Final Bill - Interest on Unpaid Amount - The court considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the unpaid amount of the final bill. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the unpaid amount from the date the amount became due until payment. (Paras 19-20)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to payment for three unpaid items of work, refund of excess interest recovered from mobilisation advance, and interest on delayed payments of running account bills, escalation bills, and final bill.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff with costs. The defendant is directed to pay the plaintiff the amount of Rs.1,09,78,024 together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until payment. The defendant is also directed to refund the excess interest recovered from mobilisation advance.

Law Points

  • Interest on delayed payments
  • Mobilisation advance recovery
  • Unpaid work items
  • Construction contract interpretation
  • Section 61 Indian Contract Act
  • 1872
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (BOM) (06) 8

SUIT NO. 1418 OF 2003

2021-06-28

S.C. GUPTE, J.

Mr.Devrat Singh with Mr.Arthav Sanghvi i/b. Praxis Legal for Plaintiff, Mr.Narayan Sahu with Ms.Khursheed Vajifdar and Ms.Rahat Kalpatri i/b. Legasis Partners for Defendants

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit for recovery of money arising out of a construction contract.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff seeks recovery of Rs.1,09,78,024 together with pendente lite and post decree interest.

Filing Reason

Non-payment for three items of work, excess recovery of interest from mobilisation advance, and delayed payments of running account bills, escalation bills, and final bill.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to payment for three unpaid items of work? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to refund of excess interest recovered from mobilisation advance? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on delayed payments of running account bills, escalation bills, and final bill?

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiff submitted that the three items of work were completed and recommended by the project management consultant, and thus payment is due. Plaintiff argued that the defendant recovered interest on mobilisation advance at 18% per annum contrary to the contracted rate of 12%. Plaintiff claimed interest on delayed payments as the contract specified payment periods and the defendant delayed payments. Defendant contended that the unpaid items were not due under the contract terms. Defendant argued that the mobilisation advance interest was correctly recovered as per contract. Defendant submitted that there was no stipulated date for payment of running bills, only an approximate period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that where a contract provides for payment within a specified period, delay in payment entitles the contractor to interest under Section 61 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Further, recovery of interest on mobilisation advance at a rate higher than contracted is not permissible. Unpaid work items that have been completed and accepted must be paid for.

Judgment Excerpts

The Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.1,09,78,024 together with pendente lite and post decree interest. The claim arises out of a construction contract. The Plaintiff completed the entire work within the stipulated date of completion. There is no dispute as to the quality of the work carried out by the Plaintiff. The grievance of the Plaintiff pertains to three individual items of work for which payment was not made by the Defendants and a claim for excess amount recovered by the Defendants from mobilisation advance given by the Defendants to the Plaintiff and diverse claims of interest.

Procedural History

The suit was filed in 2003. Issues were framed on 10 September 2014. The judgment was delivered on 28 June 2021.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Contract Act, 1872: Section 61
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Tahsildar's Demand for Royalty on Excavated Material During Construction. Held that Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to levy royalty on material excavated pursuant to valid development permission under M...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Contractor's Suit for Recovery of Unpaid Amounts and Interest in Construction Contract Dispute. Holds that Delayed Payments Attract Interest Under Section 61 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and Excess Recovery from Mobilisa...