Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu Water Supply And Drainage ... vs The Pioneer Engineering Syndicate, ... on 27 February, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1996MAD28, AIR 1996 MADRAS 28
ORDER K.A. Swami, C.J.
1. These three appeals are preferred against a common order dt. 7-12-1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 11668 to 11670 of 1994. The learned single Judge has disposed of the Writ Petitions with the following direction:
"For all the reasons stated above, the write petitions are allowed in part and the petitioner is directed to invoke Clause 51 of the Contract and refer all the dispute and (sic) ferences arising out of the contracts if question in additional the disputes already raised (sic) to the their claims, statements and other documents before the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Original Side of this (sic) under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act on the application of the petitioner (sic) the respondents shall not invoke the Bank Gurantee and maintain the (sic). There will be (sic).
In all these (sic) the 1st respondent (sic) sought (sic) the order of termination of contracts which were given for the purpose of execution of certain works of the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Under Phe said agree (sic) contain a clause providing for arbitration, namely, for claims up to Rs. 50,000/- by the Chief Engineer, TWAD Board, other than the Chief Engineer, TWAD Board World Bank Project, Coimbatore, nominated by the Board and for claims, above Rs. 50,000/- by the Civil Court having local jurisdiction of the authority who have concluded the agreement. In such a case, the learned single Judge after holding that there is "a remedy available to parties by way of arbitration, has decided the question as to which Court should be approached and has also further directed as to the enforcement of the security, in the form of Bank Guarantee, given by the contractor/1st respondent herein. We may point out here that when the learned single Judge comes to the conclusion that the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised in a case where it relates to revocation of the contract, and the contract itself provides for arbitration, no other observation or finding is required to be made, as it would be outside the purview of this Court. Therefore, we are of the View, that it was not at all necessary for the learned single Judge to have gone into the merits or other aspects of the claim. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are allowed and the order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P. Nos. 11668 to 11670 of 1994 dt. 7-12-1994 is set aside. It is made clear that it is left open to the parties to avail the remedy as is provided under the Agreements between the parties. It is submitted before us that pursuant to the directions made by the learned single Judge, suits have been filed before the Original Side of this Court. Whether this Court can entertain the suits under the Original jurisdiction or not, having regard to the terms of the agreement, is a question which is left open to be decided in the suit. No costs.
2. Writ appeals allowed.