Madras High Court

Madras High Court: Southern Railways Ordered to Compensate Engineering Firm for Project Delays

Updated
Sep 24, 2025 5:42 PM
News Image

The High Court in Madras has given a decision involving Southern Railways and Engineering Products (I) Limited. The court decided that Southern Railways must pay a large amount because of delays and extra work done by Engineering Products (I) Limited.

Background: The Contract and Delays

Back in 2000, Engineering Products (I) Limited got a deal from Southern Railways to work on the MRTS Phase-II project. The job was supposed to be done in a year, but it took more than four years. This delay led to a lot of disagreements and claims.

Claim 1: Increased Costs

Engineering Products (I) Limited asked for a 30% increase in costs because the work took longer than planned. The court agreed, saying Southern Railways should pay ₹1,22,12,625 for the extra work during the extended period.

"The entire payment requested by Engineering Products (I) Limited for the 30% increase in the value of work done during the extended period is granted."

Claim 2: Extra Coffer Dam Work

Engineering Products (I) Limited had to build extra coffer dams, which wasn't part of the original deal. The court agreed with Engineering Products (I) Limited, awarding ₹96,95,000 for this extra work.

Claim 3: Station Building Work

Engineering Products (I) Limited claimed they lost money when station building work was removed from their responsibilities. The court found this claim valid and awarded ₹8,00,000.

Other Claims: Mixed Results

  • Claim 5: Compensation for lost profits was seen as fair by the court.
  • Claims 8-13: The court found the Tribunal’s decisions fair, so no changes were made.

Judge’s View

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh pointed out that the Tribunal made some mistakes, especially in using a formula that wasn’t in use at the time. The court fixed these errors, making sure the compensation was fair.

Final Verdict

Southern Railways has to pay a total of ₹2,27,07,625, including interest, within eight weeks. This decision highlights the importance of sticking to contract terms and the potential costs of delays.