Delhi High Court · 2026-05-07
M/S JASVIT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD vs ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED (EPIL) & ANR.
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-6271/2026 2026:DHC:4242
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- M/S JASVIT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD
- Respondent
- ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED (EPIL) & ANR.
Judgment text excerpt
$~110 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6271/2026 and CM APPL. 30843/2026 Date of decision: 07.05.2026 M/S JASVIT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Sh. Darshan Paliwal, Ms. Neeraj Paliwal, Sh. Manoj Kumar Advocates versus ENGINEERING PROJECTS (INDIA) LIMITED (EPIL) & ANR. .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 30844/2026 (for exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 6271/2026 and CM APPL. 30843/2026 1. The petitioner vide the instant petition seeks to challenge the communication dated 13.02.2026 issued by the respondents, whereby the Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG) furnished by the petitioner has not been released and its extension has been directed, and further seeks directions for issuance of Completion Certificate and release of retention money. Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signed Signing Date:13.05.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 19:43:22 KUMAR KAURAV 2. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner is a construction company, who was awarded a contract by respondent No. 1 for execution of “Balance Civil work including plumbing & sanitary works of District Headquarter Hospital (DHH) with 100-bedded MCH project at Kendrapara, Odisha” vide Work Order No. PCO/BBSR/757/0256/1673 dated 27.07.2020 followed by an Agreement dated 10.09.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that the entire work stood completed on 02.12.2022 within the contractual framework, whereafter the hospital building was taken over by the authorities and has since been continuously occupied and is fully operational for public use. 3. The petitioner asserts that once the