STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SUDHIR PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioners -respondents herein entered into a contract with the appellants for supply of books. When the petitioners submitted bills to make payment for the books supplied a dispute arose regarding quality of materials and in that regard a committee was constituted and the committee submitted its report on 24.11.2006 with findings that books supplied by the petitioners were in conformity with the agreement but even after submission of the report bills were not cleared. Hence, the petitioners approached this court for seeking a direction to the appellants to make payment against the bills submitted by them.

(2.) AFTER having gone through the entire materials as well as the report of the committee, learned Single Judge directed to make payment of bills as well as the earnest money to the petitioners and for the delay in payment interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the time the report of the committee was submitted on 24.11.2006 till the payments are made, has been granted. The amount has been directed to be paid to the petitioners within one month from the date of the order. It has been further directed that the amount of interest shall be recoverable from officers who are liable for delay in any proceeding that may be instituted by the State. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount was not paid in time because of the bona fide dispute. It is further submitted that there is specifically stated in work order as contained in Annexure -1 that no interest will be claimed. He has also cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala and Others vs. P.T. Thomas, (2005)12 SCC 347, wherein it was held that in all cases of delayed payment, interest cannot be granted but only in appropriate cases. It was also held by the Supreme Court that direction to pay interest cannot be tested merely by reference to the contractual clause pertaining to interest.

(3.) IN this case it is true that there was dispute between the parties regarding quality of materials supplied but it was settled as soon as the report was submitted by the committee on 24.11.2006. It appears that even after submission of the report of the committee, the admitted amount due to the petitioners was not paid and the petitioners were deprived of the same, for which they were entitled to be paid. Hence, the learned Judge rightly awarded interest on the admitted amount from 24.11.2006.