Payment of work dues is contingent upon verification of the work actually completed.

Evermore India Pvt. Ltd. claimed outstanding dues of ₹89,11,419 for construction work undertaken under the Bagmati Flood Management Scheme, Phase-V(a), pursuant to Work Order No. 634 dated 2 July 2021.

It filed C.W.J.C. No. 8643 of 2023 seeking payment of the alleged admitted dues, release of funds, statutory interest, and protection against coercive action.

The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing the authorities to verify the work completed by the petitioner and to pay the amounts due for the completed work.

The State appealed, contending that the direction to make payment was conditional upon prior verification and that the order had been misinterpreted in contempt proceedings.

In the contempt proceeding, C.W.J.C. No. 3276 of 2025, the Court directed payment of the claimed dues by 11 September 2026 and required the personal appearance of senior officials.

Whether paragraph 13 of the Single Judge’s judgment directed unconditional payment of the respondent’s claimed dues, or whether payment was subject to prior verification of the work completed?

Whether the direction requiring personal appearance of the concerned State officials in the contempt proceeding should remain operative before completion of the verification process?

The Court applied the principle that a judicial direction must be construed by reading the operative portion of the order as a whole and giving effect to all its conditions.

A direction to pay amounts due for completed work, where preceded by a direction to verify the work completed, is conditional upon such verification.

The Court also applied the principle that contempt proceedings must enforce, and cannot enlarge or alter, the substantive directions contained in the original judgment.

The Division Bench examined paragraph 13 of the Single Judge’s order, which directed the authorities to “verify the work completed” and thereafter “pay the amounts due” for the work already completed.

It held that the payment direction could not be treated as an unconditional command to pay the entire amount claimed by the respondent.

Rather, payment was to follow verification of the work allegedly executed.

The State’s objection that it had not been given an effective opportunity to verify the work was therefore accepted.

Since the contempt order appeared to require payment of the claimed amount and personal appearance without allowing completion of the verification exercise, the Bench directed that the State be permitted to conduct a joint verification and submit its report before the Contempt Court.

The State was granted liberty to issue written notice to Evermore India Pvt. Ltd. for joint verification and to submit the verification report before the Contempt Court on or before the next date fixed.

If verification was not completed within the stipulated period, the State could seek appropriate directions from the competent court or authority.

Until completion of verification, the direction requiring personal appearance of Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 was kept in abeyance.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of.