Mulakhjit Singh vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Mulakhjit Singh, sought the release of Rs. 16,92,202/- for construction work carried out under three agreements (No. 24/2014-15, 25/2014-15, and 26/2014-15), along with 18% per annum interest on delayed payment. The respondents, State of Punjab and others, filed a written statement averring that payments were made on 31-10-2019 after statutory deductions, including GST. They claimed the petitioner had admitted to removing defects and agreed not to claim interest or file a court case due to delays. The respondents stated that the petitioner received the final payments without objection. The petitioner did not file a rejoinder to the written statement. The Court noted that the contract provided an alternative mechanism for dispute resolution through arbitration.

Held

The Court held that the question regarding the disbursement of dues and interest on account of delay was a disputed question of fact. This was primarily due to the respondents' assertion that payments had been made and the petitioner's alleged admission in an affidavit that defects were removed and that he would not claim interest or file a court case. The absence of a rejoinder from the petitioner controverting the respondents' averments further solidified this conclusion. The Court found that such disputed questions of fact could not be adjudicated in a writ petition. Therefore, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to avail the alternative remedies available, specifically mentioning the arbitration clause provided in the contract for dispute resolution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of Rs. 16,92,202/- and interest on delayed payment for construction works executed under agreements No. 24/2014-15, 25/2014-15, and 26/2014-15, considering the respondents' claim that payments were made on 31-10-2019 after statutory deductions, including GST, and the petitioner's alleged admission of no claim for interest due to delays. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought the release of the stated amount and interest, implying the payment was either not made or was insufficient, and that the delay was attributable to the respondents. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that payments were duly made on 31-10-2019, statutory deductions were made, and the petitioner had admitted to removing defects and waived claims for interest and legal action due to delays. They also highlighted the availability of an arbitration clause for dispute resolution.