The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →The Kashmir Glory reported on October 3, 2026, that the Chief Engineer (CE) PMGSY terminated the B&L Project Construction–B.S. Builders JV contract and ordered recovery of ₹4.32 crore. Its homepage summary also reports a one-year debarment for alleged non-performance and forfeiture of performance securities. The underlying article and an official order were not available for independent verification, so these remain reported claims rather than confirmed operative findings.
What the report says
A listing on The Kashmir Glory, dated October 3, 2026 and attributed to KG News Desk, carries the headline “PMGSY Terminates B&L Project Construction–B.S. Builders JV Contract, Orders ₹4.32-Crore Recovery.” The headline identifies the contractor and states a recovery amount of ₹4.32 crore.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Construction Law, Second Edition | $220.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Smith, Currie & Hancock's Common Sense Construction Law: A Practical Guide for the Construction... | $104.07 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Construction Law | $47.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Construction Contracts and Law (Higher Education Coursebook) | $128.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Construction Law for Managers, Architects, and Engineers | $154.93 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The listing summary says the contractor was debarred for one year over alleged non-performance and that performance securities were ordered forfeited. It does not explain the scope of the debarment, the process leading to the reported measures, or whether an appeal or stay is in effect.
What is not confirmed
The accessible listing does not identify the project package or location, contract value, chronology of the alleged non-performance, or the issuing officer’s full authority. It also does not provide the calculation or legal basis for the recovery, clarify whether recovery is separate from forfeiture of performance securities, or include the contractor’s response. Whether a hearing took place and whether any appeal or stay is pending are not established.
#1 Best Overall
Because the underlying article could not be accessed and no official order or independent corroboration was available, the reported amount, grounds, procedure and current legal status should not be treated as verified findings.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What an official order would clarify
To establish the position, the relevant primary document would be the termination and recovery order. It should be checked for:
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #3
Rank #2
- the project or package, location and contract parties;
- the stated grounds and chronology supporting termination;
- the calculation and legal basis for the ₹4.32-crore recovery;
- whether recovery and performance-security forfeiture are distinct measures;
- the decision-maker’s authority and any recorded hearing or response; and
- any appeal, stay or subsequent order affecting enforcement.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
