0

Delhi High Court Rejects Frivolous Petition in Construction Dispute, Pointing to Availability of alternative Remedies

Case Name:  UP State Bridge Corporation ltd. & Anr v. National Highways and Infrastructure 

Case No.: W.P.(C) 3256/2024 & CM APPL. 13420/2024 

Dated: May 08, 2024 

Quorum: Justice Subramonium Prasad 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The Petitioner has come before this court to contest the Respondent’s communication from February 9, 2024, which declared the Petitioner to be a “Non-Performer” and stated that the Petitioner would not be permitted to bid on any project with the Ministry of Road, Transport, and Highways or any of its executing agencies until their name was taken off the list of Non-Performers.  

Furthermore, the aforementioned communication makes it clear that the Petitioner will also include its joint venture partners and promoters whose qualifications were taken into account when they were approved for the project of “Building of Two Lanes with Paved Shoulders of New Greenfield Alignment from Chochenpheri at Km. 52.000 to Helipad Near Menla at Km. 82.000 of Rhenoc-Menla spur (NH-717 B) Package-III on EPC basis under SARDPNE Phase ‘A’ in the State of Sikkim.” 

The Respondent put out a bid for the project of “Construction of 2 laning with paved shoulder of new Greenfield alignment from Chochenpheri at Km. 52.000 to Helipad near Menla at Km. 82.000 of Rhenoc-Menla spur (NH-717 B) Package-III on EPC basis under SARDP-NE Phase ‘A’ in the State of Sikkim”. 

Having placed the highest bid, the petitioner was given the opportunity to complete the job. Petitioner submitted a bid of Rs. 532,52,00,000/-for the contract, which was accepted by Respondent on October 28, 2020, via letter. The petitioner provided the performance security of Rs. 26,62,60,000 and an extra performance security of Rs. 3,16,82,000 in accordance with clause 2.21 of the RFP, in accordance with the conditions of the bid document. The project was set to end on December 10, 2020, and work had to be finished within 36 months of that date. 

First to work was the petitioner. Whether or not the Petitioner was granted the Right of Way (ROW) to complete the construction has been the subject of several disagreements between the Petitioner and the Respondent. The Respondent is not happy with the Petitioner’s performance in numerous other areas as well. Records reveal that the Petitioner was given the opportunity to have personal hearings in order to provide an explanation for the reasons behind the contract’s delay in performance. Documentation in the file also reveals that the Petitioner received two cure notices, dated 24.11.2022 and 11.10. 2023. 

Since the petitioner was designated as a “Non-Performer,” their name has been added to a list of non-performers, and they are not allowed to participate in any bids with the Ministry of Road, Transport, and Highways or any of its executing agencies until they are taken off the list. 

  

LEGAL PROVISION: 

  • Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act- Extent of judicial intervention. Regardless of the provisions of any other currently enacted legislation, no judicial authority may get involved in topics covered by this Part unless specifically authorised by this Part. 
  • Section 34 of the Arbitration Act- The sole way to challenge an arbitral award in court is to file an application to have the award set aside in line with subsections (2) and (3). (ii) There is a disagreement between the arbitral ruling and Indian public policy. (iii) It goes against even rudimentary moral or just conceptions. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER: 

The learned counsel representing the petitioner argues that the contested communication, dated 09.02.2024, was approved based on a circular dated 06.10.2021, even though the letter of award was sent on October 28, 2020. As a result, the respondent was unable to punish the petitioner because the contract agreement was signed before the date the circular, dated 06.10.2021, was issued, and the petitioner is not covered by it.  

Furthermore, it is stated that the natural justice standards were not followed in the passing of the contested communication. The petitioner claims that in addition to being ordered to stick with the current contract, they have also been forbidden from placing any bids with the Ministry of Road, Transport, and Highways.  

It is also argued the respondent cannot be allowed to hold opposing views at the same time. It further states that the Petitioner cannot be required to fulfil its portion of the contract within a set amount of time as the Respondent has not fulfilled its share of the obligations and has failed to fulfil its share of the reciprocal obligations. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The respondent’s attorney brings up the maintainability of the writ petition, pointing out that the contract has an arbitration clause. Furthermore, under paragraph 7 of the Circular dated 06.10.2021, it is specified that the Impugned Communication may be appealed before the Appellate Authority, which is the Secretary, Road Transport and Highway Development. 

It is claimsed that this Court should not hear the current writ petition since the Petitioner has access to an other effective remedy. In addition to addressing the question of the writ petition’s sustainability, the learned attorney representing the respondent also called attention to a number of shortcomings on the part of the petitioner, including the fact that the design and drawings for 3.340 km of the 4.470 km of viaducts have not been provided.  

Furthermore, it is mentioned that project milestone II is not yet completed and that as of November 19, 2023, there has been just 24.04% financial development, although 30% should have been the result. The Petitioner is said to have had multiple opportunities, a personal hearing, and cure notices issued to them, but they have not taken any action. As a result, this Court should not use its discretion under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution because it has been declared that the decision-making process has been equitable. 

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The court determined that extracting the arbitration clause was pertinent. The dispute resolution procedure is covered in Article 26 of the contract agreement.  

Article 26 states that, in the first instance, any disagreement, argument, or dispute between the Parties regarding any aspect of this Agreement (including its interpretation) shall be tried to be settled amicably through the conciliation process; if that fails, the matter will be referred to arbitration. 

The court, after a reading of the aforementioned paragraph reveals that the High Court may hear a writ petition even in cases where there is a viable alternative remedy, where the writ petition aims to enforce a fundamental right, where natural justice principles are violated, where the contested orders or proceedings are completely without jurisdiction, or where the validity of an Act is being contested. It is well established that when there is a different, effective remedy available and when the parties have mutually agreed to arbitrate their dispute, courts acting under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution generally do not intervene. 

The Court believed that there were contested factual issues in the current case. The only way to establish the contested facts is for both parties to present oral and written evidence; an affidavit cannot be used as the sole means of establishing the facts. 

It was of the view of this Court that the Petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case supporting its position. In any case, it is improper for this Court to grant a stay on the operation of the contested communication when it is not inclined to entertain the writ petition based on the facts of the case. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act gives the Court of Competent Jurisdiction the authority to decide the matter based on the merits of the case.  

Due to the aforementioned, the Court was hesitant to grant the writ petition, citing the petitioner’s access to an alternative effective remedy. 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

Click to view judgment.

0

In presence of an alternative remedy to appeal, a Writ petition won’t suffice in the court of law : Bombay HC

TITLE : Rahibai Laxman Lokhande & Ors. V State of Maharashtra

CITATION : W.P No 7400 of 2023

CORAM : Hon’ble justice Madhav J. Jamdar

DATE:  5th December, 2023

INTRODUCTION :

The challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 18th April 2023 passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records in Appeal.

FACTS :

The contesting Respondents that the Writ Petition be not entertained in view of the availability of the alternate remedy. He submitted that there is Appeal provided under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

Section 247 provides that, an appeal shall lie from any decision or order passed by a revenue or survey office specified in column 1 of the Schedule E under this Code or any other law for the time being in force to the officer specified in column 2 of that Schedule whether or not such decision or order may itself have been passed on appeal from the decision of order of the officer specified in column 1 of the said Schedule: Provided that, in no case the number of appeals shall exceed two.

The Petitioners contend that the impugned order itself has been passed in Appeal and therefore, the Second Appeal is not competent under Section 247 of the said Code.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court held that Section 247 of the said Code very clearly specifies that two Appeals are competent and the Appellate Authorities are described in Schedule E.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed in view of availability of the alternate remedy of statutory Appeal under Section 247 of the said Code, with no order as to costs. It is clarified that the Petitioners can file the Appeal as contemplated under Section 247 of the said Code challenging the impugned order.   

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

0

Alternate remedy not a bar to approach HC: Bombay HC

Title: NAMDEO APPARAO CHATE AND ORS. v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ORS.

Decided on: 26th July, 2023

+ WRIT PETITION NO. 6598 OF 2023

CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioners have challenged the Awards dated 17.07.2015, 24.07.2015, 10.07.2015 and 02.06.20105, respectively by filing different petitions on 02.05.2023, which is practically after eight years.

Issues

Whether the High Court should dismiss the petitions because the other statutory remedies have not been exhausted?

Contentions

The petitioners contend that since they have not accepted the Awards delivered under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013, they can take recourse to the statutory, efficacious and expeditious remedy under Section 64 of the Act. It is a settled position of law that all the grounds can be raised under the said proceedings

The Respondents contend that the petitioners had approached this Court after eight years of the passing of the Awards, by avoiding the statutory remedy under Section 64. There is no reason set out as to why this Court should entertain these petitions directly. It was also not the contention of the petitioners that the statutory remedy is neither efficacious nor expeditious. No element of urgency had been made out in order to convince this Court to exercise jurisdiction.  They relied on many judgments of the past to establish that the Court should dismiss these petitions because, there are other statutory remedies available.

Decision

 The Court held that the High Court has jurisdiction to decide whether to allow the petitions or not. There have been instances where, the High Court has allowed petitions although other statutory remedies were not exhausted. Alternate remedy is not a bar and therefore, the HC has allowed these petitions.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Aparna Gupta, University Law College & Dept. of Studies in Law

Click to view the Judgment