Indefinite payment deferral in public works contracts is impermissible; reasonable time limits and interest apply to delayed release.

A standard-form public works contract cannot defer admitted payment indefinitely by relying on an uncertain queue system or future fund availability; the payment clauses must be read as requiring release within a reasonable contractual time, here treated as the outer periods stated in the contract. The security deposit or earnest money must be refunded once the stipulated clearance conditions are met, and it cannot be withheld for internal administrative reasons or lack of funds. Where payment is delayed beyond the reasonable period, interest may follow under general interest and compensation principles, though any earlier consent order may govern the same work orders. Simple interest was linked to the security deposit from the decree date, with no pendente lite interest.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the payment of the principal amount could be deferred indefinitely on the basis of the contractual queue system and availability of funds. (ii) Whether refund of earnest money/security deposit could be postponed under the contractual conditions. (iii) Whether interest was payable on delayed payment of the principal amount and on delayed refund of security deposit, and for what period.

Issue (i): Whether the payment of the principal amount could be deferred indefinitely on the basis of the contractual queue system and availability of funds.

Analysis: The contractual clauses and the 2006 amendment were examined together. A works contract cannot be structured so that payment of consideration depends on an uncertain future availability of funds and an indeterminate queue position. Such an arrangement leaves no fixed outer limit for payment, is inconsistent with the requirement of performance within a reasonable time, and is unconscionable in a standard form public contract. The outer periods stated in the contract itself were treated as the reasonable payment periods, and the queue system could not override them indefinitely.

Conclusion: The deferment of the principal amount beyond the reasonable contractual periods was not permissible. The principal amount became payable within 6 months or 9 months, depending on the work value, and could not be withheld indefinitely.

Issue (ii): Whether refund of earnest money/security deposit could be postponed under the contractual conditions.

Analysis: The clauses governing security deposit required completion of work, application for labour clearance, and either clearance by the Labour Officer or deemed clearance after the stipulated period. Those clauses did not contemplate a queue system or indefinite delay. Once the contractual conditions for release were satisfied, the security deposit could not be withheld on the ground of lack of funds or other internal administrative considerations.

Conclusion: The security deposit had to be refunded upon compliance with the stipulated conditions and could not be delayed beyond the contractual period.

Issue (iii): Whether interest was payable on delayed payment of the principal amount and on delayed refund of security deposit, and for what period.

Analysis: A clause excluding interest for an indefinite delay was held to be unlawful to the extent it defeated payment beyond the reasonable contractual period. Interest Act principles and the law on compensation for deprivation of money were applied. However, for the same transaction and work orders, the parties remained bound by the earlier consent order in respect of the principal amount and its interest. As to the security deposit, the delay justified interest from the date fixed by the decree and not pendente lite interest, in the absence of compliance with the relevant conditions earlier.

Conclusion: Interest was payable on delayed payment beyond the reasonable period, but in the present matter the principal amount and its interest were governed by the earlier consent order. The security deposit carried simple interest from the date of decree, and no pendente lite interest was awarded on the principal or security deposit.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed in part by modifying the decree on the security deposit claim while leaving the principal amount and its interest to be governed by the earlier binding consent order for the same work orders. The impugned decree was otherwise maintained in substance.

Ratio Decidendi: A standard form public contract cannot validly permit indefinite postponement of admitted payment on the basis of uncertain fund availability and queue position; such clauses must be read down so that payment is made within a reasonable time and delayed payment attracts interest, while refund of security deposit follows the stipulated release conditions.

---