Petitioner sought writ direction for payment of work dues under a contract. The Court held the matter involved serious disputed facts and an arbitration clause. Writ jurisdiction was not appropriate.
The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs; petitioner free to avail other remedies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
0605wp1098.13
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1098 OF 2013
Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd. VERSUS Nagpur Municipal Corporation
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's orders
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATE : MAY 06, 2014 .
By this petition the petitioner seeks a direction to respondent-Corporation to forthwith pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 70,83,646/- towards dues payable to the petitioner in pursuance of the work executed by the petitioner in terms of the contract dated 03-03-1999.
The petitioner is a Company in the field of technical and engineering consultancy services. The petitioner and the respondent Corporation entered into a contract on 03-03-1999 in respect of technical consultancy services, in pursuance of which an amount of Rs. 2,45,00,000/- was payable to the petitioner by the Corporation. So also, according to the petitioner, for the project management consultancy work and in respect of the master plan for sewerage the amount payable to the petitioner under the contract was Rs.3,35,00,000/- and Rs. 89, 00,000/- respectively. According to the petitioner there was an expansion of the scope of the work resulting in
0605wp1098.13
2
the enhancement of costs. The petitioner claimed to have completed the work under the contract for technical consultancy services and the project management consultancy to the satisfaction of the respondent-Corporation. According to the petitioner, the work in regard to the master plan for sewerage was not executed by the petitioner. Though initially, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs. 6,28,00,000/- from the Corporation, by an amended prayer clause the petitioner has restricted the claim to the extent of Rs. 70 lacs and odd only.
The respondent-Corporation has filed the preliminary submissions and has opposed the prayer made in the petition. The respondent-Corporation has seriously disputed the facts stated in the petition in regard to the execution of the work by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the respondent-Corporation and the entitlement of the petitioner to the amount claimed . It is stated in the reply that the petitioner ought not have filed the Writ Petition and in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement dated 03.03.1999. In any case, according to the Corporation, in view of the disputed facts in the matter pertaining to a contract, the petitioner could have availed the remedy of filing a civil suit, if there was no arbitration clause, and the petition is not maintainable.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the Writ Petition as also the preliminary submissions filed on behalf of the Corporation, it appears that the issues involved in this case cannot be decided in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. This Court would not be in a position to direct the respondent-Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 70
0605wp1098.13
3
lacs to the petitioner on the basis of the Resolution of the Municipal Corporation bearing No. 421. It is rightly stated on behalf of the Corporation that the petitioner could not have approached this Court in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement. In any case, it appears from a reading of the submission of the respondent-Corporation that the facts averred in Writ Petition are seriously disputed and since this is a contractual matter the issues involved in the Writ Petition cannot be decided without granting an opportunity to the parties to tender evidence. The monetary relief sought by the petitioner in the instant petition cannot be granted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.
For the reasons aforesaid the Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner is however free to avail such remedy, as is available in law.
JUDGE
JUDGE
svk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition seeking payment of dues under a contract with an arbitration clause when facts are seriously disputed.
Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd.
Nagpur Municipal Corporation
Vasanti A. Naik
A. S. Chandurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
