HC Dismisses Review; Imposes Rs. 50,000 Costs for Dishonest Attempt

The legal battle started when Vijeta Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. sued the Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation (JSBCCL) over unpaid GST refunds, labour charges, and price variations. In February 2026, both sides met to settle. They signed off on the price variation claims but left the GST and labour issues open. This agreement was documented and supported by the government’s own Executive Engineer. Based on this pact, the Court closed the case and ordered the payments. However, the State authorities suddenly had a change of heart. They filed a review petition, claiming their lawyer didn’t have permission to settle and argued the deal should have covered all claims, effectively trying to wiggle out of their remaining liabilities.

Central Issue: Can a government body reopen a case by disowning its lawyer’s statements and twisting the terms of a signed settlement?

HC’s Ruling: The Division Bench comprising Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar dismissed the review petition, holding it to be a dishonest and abusive attempt to re-argue the case. The Court observed that the Minutes of the meeting unequivocally recorded a settlement limited to price variation, with no agreement regarding GST refund or labour charges. It further clarified that the earlier order was not based solely on the statement of counsel but was founded on the recorded understanding between the parties. The contention that counsel had acted without instructions was rejected as baseless and merely an attempt to deflect responsibility.

The Court also held that filing a review petition with a change of counsel to reopen concluded issues is impermissible and contrary to settled legal principles. Strongly relying on established Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Bench deprecated such conduct and termed the approach of the State authorities as “extremely dishonest” and an abuse of the judicial process. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000, directed to be paid personally by the Managing Director and Executive Engineer, without imposing any burden on public funds.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below