Disposed

M/S Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024WRIC/22249/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the rejection of its claim for balance payment by the Kanpur Development Authority. The court noted that the work contract lacked an arbitration clause and the dispute involved complex factual questions regarding work performed. The court declined to decide the merits, directing the petitioner to approach a competent civil court.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises vs State of Up and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:119589-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22249 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Shukla,Aklesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Prakash Paul,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.M. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State (respondent No. 1), and Ms. Subhanjali Gupta, learned counsel holding the brief of Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 4 - Kanpur Development Authority (KDA).

¶7

The petitioner-firm has invoked the writ jurisdiction to challenge the validity of the impugned order dated 26.06.2024, which was passed in response to the order dated 20.03.2024 in Writ-C No. 9226 of 2024 (M/S Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and Others). In the previous round of litigation, the petitioner claimed an outstanding amount of Rs.25,88,006/- from respondent No. 2 for interlocking work executed in 2022. Out of the total claimed payment, a part payment of Rs. 4,04,994/- was made to the petitioner on 7.7.2023, leaving the balance amount pending. In this situation, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction for redressal of its grievance, and the writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the KDA may decide the petitioner's claim in accordance with the law.

¶8

Ms. Subhanjali Gupta, learned counsel holding the brief for Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2, 3, and 4 - Kanpur Development Authority (KDA), states that the bills were processed and paid to the petitioner in accordance with the work performed. For the work not performed by the petitioner firm, the authority passed the impugned order detailing the rejection of the petitioner's claim. She also stated that the work contract did not contain a specific clause for arbitration and that if the petitioner firm is disputing the claim for the balance payment and is inclined to challenge the impugned order, the appropriate remedy is to file a suit for the claim before a competent civil court, as the disputed facts cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction.

¶9

Considering the factual situation and the objection so raised by the learned counsel for the KDA, we have examined the record and carefully perused the order dated 26.06.2024. At this stage, we are not inclined to make any observation qua the claim set up by the petitioner that would prejudice the petitioner's rights in subsequent proceedings, if so advised. Considering the factual situation, we leave it open to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief before a competent civil court.

¶10

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶11

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 NLY

¶12

Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rakesh Gupta and 4 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Dinesh Bajpai vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nagar Nigam Varanasi vs Rinki Gupta and 14 Others

Ashok Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Awadhesh Kumar vs State of Up and 2 Others

Manju Vishwakarma vs State of Up and 3 Others