Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Order Date: 12 June 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Petitioner GVR‑RMN (JV), represented by authorized signatory Kondapally Venkata Rama Satya Subrahmenswara Sharma, Chennai; Opposite parties: State of Jharkhand and Sunil Kumar, Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand.
- Contempt petition (Cont. Case No. 373 of 2026) filed alleging willful violation of the Court’s order dated 13 February 2024 in W.P.(C) No.1187 of 2018, which required release of balance amount of invoked performance security‑BG and retention money‑BG within three weeks.
- Earlier hearing on 1 May 2026 ordered the opposite party to file a supplementary show‑cause affidavit clarifying conditions on payment of IPC‑63 balance, with a deadline of 9 June 2026.
- On 12 June 2026 the opposite party filed the supplementary affidavit, stating:
- A Technical Committee was constituted vide order no. 2052 (S) WE dated 15 May 2026 to calculate amounts for remaining work.
- The Committee submitted its report by letter no. 596 dated 27 May 2026.
- Under Clause 15.4(c) of the contract, the Department may recover all losses, damages and extra costs for balance and defective work.
- The Committee determined gross admissible dues under IPC‑Bill‑63 as Rs 2,71,66,032.00 plus retained money Rs 39,03,170.00, total Rs 3,10,69,202.00.
- At termination, the engineer’s prevailing‑rate estimate of balance work was Rs 13,99,98,491.16; the Technical Committee’s agreement‑rate calculation gave Rs 10,17,40,372.66, leaving an additional financial burden of Rs 3,82,58,118.50 to complete the work.
- The Committee concluded that no dues are payable to the petitioner because the cost to complete the incomplete work and rectify defects far exceeds the petitioner’s claim under IPC‑Bill‑63.
- Petitioner’s counsel, Mr Sumeet Gadodia, contended that the Department illegally withheld the balance bank guarantee, the IPC‑63 bill, and the retention amount, and that the minutes of the meeting dated 27 May 2026 annexed to letter 596 were illegal and arbitrary.
Final Outcome
- The Court, after reviewing the supplementary affidavit, found that no contempt of its earlier order was established against the opposite party.
- The contempt proceeding against the Road Construction Department is therefore dropped, and the petition is disposed.
- The petitioner is at liberty to pursue any other appropriate legal remedy for its remaining grievance.
Topics: Legal Proceedings, Infrastructure Contract Dispute