Karnataka High Court
M/S Ramalingam Constructions vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 October, 2020
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
WRIT PETITION NO. 56652/2014 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S RAMALINGAM CONSTRUCTIONS
COMPANY PVT LTD
NO. 252, GANDHIJI ROAD
CHANDRAN STUDIO BUILDING
ERODE-638 001 (T N)
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI CHANDRAKANTH
S/O RAMALINGAM
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO. 705, J TOWER
BINNY STONE GARDEN
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE - 23. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R. P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION,
M S BUIDING,
BANGALORE- 560 001.
2. CHIEF ENGINEER
MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT
K R CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
-2-
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION
SHIMOGA- 577 201. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.V. KRISHNA, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 18.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE
R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND DIRECT TO THE
RESPONDENTS TO REFUND THE EXCESS ROYALTY
AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM THE BILLS OF THE
PETITIONERS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 09.07.2012 TO
21.08.2014 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THROUGH PHYSICAL
HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCE HEARING (OPTIONAL),
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In the instant petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
a) Issue Writ in the nature certiorari and quash the notice dated 18.08.2014 issued by the respondent No.3 under Annexure-C.
b) Issue direction to the respondents to refund the excess royalty amount collected from the bills of the petitioners for the period from 09.07.2012 to 21.08.2014 in accordance with law.-3-
c) Issue such other order or direction as may be deemed fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.
2. The petitioner is stated to have executed certain civil disputes relating to settlement of payment. Thus, the petitioner has questioned the communication vide Annexure-C dated 30.03.2012.
3. On perusal of the statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents read with Annexure - R4, extraction of the agreement Clause 4 relates to Arbitration (Clause-24), which reads as under:
"4. Arbitration (Clause 24) 4.1 The procedure for arbitration shall be as follows:-
(a) In case of dispute or difference arising between the Employer and the Contractor relating to any matter arising out of or connected with this agreement it shall be settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The disputes or differences shall be referred to a State Arbitrator. The Sole Arbitrator shall be -4- appointed by agreement between the parties; failing such agreement, by the Appointing Authority (any one of the Organisations as per list enclosed in Annexure).
(b) Arbitration proceedings shall be held at Bangalore Karnataka, India.
(c) The cost and expenses of arbitration proceedings will be paid as determined by the Arbitrator. However, the expenses incurred by each party in connection with the preparation, presentation, etc., shall be borne by each party itself.
(d) Performance under the contract shall continue during the arbitration proceedings and payments due the Contractor by the Employer shall not be withheld, unless they are the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings."
4. Writ is maintainable if,
(i) Enforcement of any fundamental law
(ii) Failure of principle of natural justice.
(iii) Without jurisdiction
(iv) Act or its Provisions are challenged -5-
(v) As held by the Apex Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and another Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., reported in AIR 2003 SC 2120. Further, the Apex Court reiterated in the case of Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India and others decided on 14.05.2015 reported in (2015) 374 ITR 322 (SC).
5. In view of the aforesaid decisions read with factual aspects of the matter, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum.
Sd/-
JUDGE NR/-