Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)Union Of India & Ors vs Tantia Construction Pvt.Ltd on 18 April, 2011
12) The judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tantia Construction
(P) Ltd. relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant can
be distinguished on facts. In the said case, the offer letter did not cover the
extended work on account of alteration of the design and was confined to the
work originally contracted for. However, the respondent company was expected
to complete the entire work which comprised both the work covered under the
initial tender and the extended work covered by the second tender. The
respondent company had expressed its unwillingness to take up the extended work
and it agreed to complete the balance work of the initial contract at the same
rates as quoted earlier despite the fact that a long time had elapsed between
the awarding of the contract and the actual execution thereof. By the second
tender, the entire design of the rail over-bridge was altered converting the
same into a completely new project. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court
held that notwithstanding the provisions relating to the arbitration clause
contained in the agreement, the High Court was fully within its competence to
entertain and dispose of the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent
Company.
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd on 20 August, 1996
10) In the case on hand, apparently, the contract between the parties is one
in the realm of private law. It is not a statutory contract. It is governed by
the provisions of the Contract Act. As held by the Supreme Court in State of
U.P. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., any dispute relating to interpretation
of the terms and conditions of such a contract cannot be agitated and could not
have been agitated in a writ petition. The prayer in the writ petition is to
consider and dispose of the representations made by the appellant to the APIIC,
which relate to payment of running account bills for the work executed by the
appellant. There is a dispute as to the quantum of work executed by the
appellant and stoppage of work by it. While the respondent APIIC contends that
the appellant stopped the work on its own accord, the appellant says that the
work was stopped on verbal instructions of the officers of APIIC. Further,
according to the appellant, it had completed more than 34% of the work, whereas
the APIIC contends that the appellant completed about 31% of the work. The
payment of running account bills depends on the quantum of work executed by the
appellant. There is a serious dispute between the parties as to the stoppage of
work and sanction of bills. All these questions cannot be gone into in a
proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the
agreement entered into between the parties provides for settlement of disputes
by reference to arbitration (Clause 73 of the agreement). When the contract
itself provides for a mode of settlement of disputes arising from the contract,
there is no reason why the parties should not follow and adopt that remedy and
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The
prayer in the writ petition is misconceived since the appellant was not seeking
to enforce any statutory right or seeking to enforce any statutory obligation
cast upon the respondents. In our view, the existence of an effective
alternative remedy provided in the agreement itself is a good ground for the
court to decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction.
Radhakrishna Agarwal & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 March, 1977
9) In Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court observed that
it was the contract and not the executive power regulated by the Constitution,
which governed the relation of the parties on the facts of the case and they
involved questions of pure alleged breaches of contract. In such cases, no
writ or order could issue under Article 226 of the Constitution to compel the
authorities to remedy a breach of contract.
Gujarat State Financial Corporation vs Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd. on 3 May, 1983
5) The learned Senior Counsel argued that there is no dispute that at least
31% work has been completed by the appellant and that the bills have been
certified and referred to the Head Office for further action. Further, there is
no "dispute" which can be referred to arbitration and, therefore, the appellant
should not be driven to the alternative remedy of arbitration. The learned
Senior Counsel submitted that the APIIC being a statutory Corporation cannot be
allowed to act arbitrarily in discharge and performance of its statutory duty
when it entered into an agreement making the appellant to act upon it. He has
further submitted that the officers of the APIIC cannot arbitrarily ignore their
promise and put the appellant in a disadvantageous position. He has relied on
the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Financial Corpn. v. Lotus
Hotels1, Food Corporation of India v. SEIL Ltd.2 and Union of India v. Tantia
Construction (P) Ltd.3
Food Corporation Of India & Anr vs M/S. Seil Ltd. & Ors on 11 January, 2008
5) The learned Senior Counsel argued that there is no dispute that at least
31% work has been completed by the appellant and that the bills have been
certified and referred to the Head Office for further action. Further, there is
no "dispute" which can be referred to arbitration and, therefore, the appellant
should not be driven to the alternative remedy of arbitration. The learned
Senior Counsel submitted that the APIIC being a statutory Corporation cannot be
allowed to act arbitrarily in discharge and performance of its statutory duty
when it entered into an agreement making the appellant to act upon it. He has
further submitted that the officers of the APIIC cannot arbitrarily ignore their
promise and put the appellant in a disadvantageous position. He has relied on
the judgments of the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Financial Corpn. v. Lotus
Hotels1, Food Corporation of India v. SEIL Ltd.2 and Union of India v. Tantia
Construction (P) Ltd.3
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Sale Of Goods Act, 1930
Sharada Vilas Educational ... vs J Umesh S/O L Javaraju on 16 September, 2011
________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J.
1