Can Municipal corporations include a term in the works contract that they will make payments to the contractor as and when funds in a particular budget head are available?

  As per Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd. (2011) 15 SCC 273 cited by the Corporation, the test for the invoking of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC being that the admission so made must clear and unequivocal, on the face of which it is impossible for the party making it to succeed. In the light of the stand in the written statement, there is a clear admission as to the final bill amount as also that the Contractor has to wait in a queue. Thus the Trial Court has rightly invoked the provisions of Order XII Rule 6.{Para 55}

Conclusions and Findings

56. The General Conditions of Contract i.e., clauses 7 and 9 which are admittedly part of the work orders issued by both the NrDMC and the EDMC are being tested in these batch of cases. A contract which stipulates that the consideration would be paid in an unforeseen time in the future based on certain factors which are indeterminable, would in effect be a contract without consideration. Even if the contract is held to be a valid contract, then the concept of `reasonableness' has to be read into the same. Section 46 of the Contract Act and the explanation thereto is clear that “what is a reasonable time is a question of fact in each case.” A Corporation which gets works executed cannot therefore include terms in the contract which are per se unconscionable and unreasonable as -

a) There is no fixed time period as to when the funds would be available;

b) There is also no fixed mechanism to determine as to when and in what manner the head of account is to be determined and as to how the Contractor would acquire knowledge of these two facts;

c) There is also no certainty as to how many persons are in the queue prior to the Contractor and for what amounts;

d) There is enormous ambiguity in the receipt under the particular heads of accounts.

57. These clauses in effect say that the Contractor is left with no remedy if the Corporation does not pay for the work that has been executed. Such a Clause would be illegal and contrary to law. Such clauses, even in commercial contracts, would be contrary to Section 25 read with Section 46 of the Contract Act.

58. The clauses do not specify an outer time limit for payment. The expression reasonable time has to be `a time'. The concept of time itself is ensconced with specificity and precision. Clause 9 is the opposite of being precise. It is as vague and ambiguous as it could be because it depends on factors which are totally extraneous to the contract, namely -

 Allotment of funds to the Corporation by the Government;

 Allotment of funds in a particular head;

 Allotment of funds for payments who are in queue prior to the contractor;

59. Thus, these factors, which are beyond the control of the Contractor and which would govern the payment of consideration, make the said clauses of the contract completely unreasonable. The clauses have to thus, be read or interpreted in a manner so as to instill reasonableness in them.

60. By applying the above said principles, in respect of final bills raised by Contractors for works executed, that have been approved by the Engineer-in-Charge, the Clauses have to be read in the following manner:

a) Reasonable time for making of payments of final bills in respect of work orders up to Rs.5 lakhs shall be 6 months and work orders exceeding Rs.5 lakhs shall be 9 months from the date when the bill is passed by the Engineer-in-Charge.

b) The queue basis can be applicable for the payments to be made in chronology. However, the outer limit of 6 months and 9 months cannot be exceeded, while applying the queue system.

c) The payments are held to become due and payable immediately upon the expiry of 6 months and 9 months and any non-payment would attract payment of interest for the delayed periods.

d) A conjoint reading of Clauses 7 & 9 along with the amendment dated 19th May, 2006, clearly shows that for the payment of bills, the contractors have to follow the queue basis and as and when the amount is available under the particular head of account, the amount would be payable. The amendment does not, however, have a condition that no interest is payable for delayed payment. Such a condition exists only in Clause 7. Clause 9, therefore, when read with the amendment has to mean that the Corporation itself considers 6 months and 9 months to be the reasonable periods for which the payments of the final bills can be held back.

e) To the extent that queue basis is applied only for clearing of payments which do not extend beyond the period of 6 months and 9 months period, it is reasonable. However, if the queue basis is applied in order to make Contractors wait for indefinite periods for receiving payments, then the same would be unreasonable and would have to therefore be read down.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 RFA 160/2017 & CM APPL. 5807/2017 (Stay)

NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION  Vs VIPIN GUPTA 

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Date of decision :22nd March, 2018

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page