Disposed¶22

Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Feb 2025WP/17686/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd.; Union of India; Bombay High Court; Writ Petition No.17686 of 2024; Article 226; Dispute Resolution Board (DRB); clause 41 special conditions of contract; Garrison Engineer (P) NDA Khadakwasla; Maj T. Rakesh affidavit 11 February 2025; Exhibit-A reply affidavit; DRB constituted 13 December 2024; decision on disputed claims on merits; eight-week timeline; contentions kept open; no costs; disposed.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of: the DRB (constituted 13 December 2024) was directed to hear the parties and decide the petitioner's disputed claims on merits and in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date the order is made available to the DRB/respondents; all contentions of the parties kept open; no costs. ¶22

Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India Ministry… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.2 should be directed to constitute the Dispute Resolution Board as required under the Special Conditions of the contract and to have the petitioner's disputes decided expeditiously within prescribed timelines.

¶11

Court's answer

In view of the DRB having already been constituted on 13 December 2024, the Court directed the DRB to hear the parties and take a decision on the disputed claims of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than within eight weeks from the date the order is made available to the DRB/respondents.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

All contentions of the parties before the DRB are expressly kept open.

¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a limited relief: a direction to Respondent No.2 (Union of India) to constitute the Dispute Resolution Board under the Special Conditions of the contract and to have the disputes decided expeditiously. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, subsequent to the filing of the petition, the DRB had already been constituted on 13 December 2024 under clause 41 of the special conditions of the contract, a fact confirmed in para-9 of the respondents' reply affidavit of Maj T. Rakesh, Garrison Engineer (P) NDA Khadakwasla dated 11 February 2025 (particulars at Exhibit-A). Considering that the DRB already stood constituted, Kulkarni and Sethna, JJ., disposed of the petition, directing the DRB to hear the parties and decide the petitioner's disputed claims on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and not later than eight weeks from the date the order is made available to the DRB/respondents, while expressly keeping all contentions of the parties open and imposing no costs.

¶1

WP 17686-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.17686 OF 2024

¶4

Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Sahil Dewani (through V.C.) a/w Mr. Sumit Khanna and Mr. Sachet Makhija i/b Dewani Associates for Petitioner. Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶6

Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH VASANT VASANT CHITTEWAN CHITTEWAN Date: 2025.02.21 19:56:03 +0530

¶7

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

¶8

DATE : 12 FEBRUARY 2025

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following substantive relief :-

¶11

“(b) Direct the Respondent No.2 to constitute the Dispute Resolution Board (“DRB”) as required under Clause of the Special Conditions of the said Contract within a period of 30 days from the date of the order of this Hon’ble Court and decide the disputes expeditiously within 60 days from the date of constitution of DRB.”

¶12

Mr. Sahil Dewani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is praying for the aforesaid limited relief. To this, he would add that subsequent to the filing of this petition, Dispute Resolution Board (“ DRB ” for short)has been constituted on 13 December 2024 under clause 41 of the special condition of the contract between the petitioner and the respondents.

¶13

Page 1 of 2

¶14

Rajesh Chittewan, PA

¶15

WP 17686-2024.doc

¶16

Mr. Aniruddha A. Garge, learned Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 5 has relied on the Affidavit of Maj T. Rakesh, Garrison Engineer (P) NDA Khadakwasla dated 11 February 2025 on behalf of the respondents, which is taken on record. The reply affidavit, in para-9, confirms the constitution of DRB, as stated above, the particulars of which are at Exhibit -A to the said reply affidavit.

¶17

With the assistance of leaned counsel for the parties, we have perused the record.

¶18

Considering the fact that the DRB is already constituted on 13 December 2024, in our view, the following order will meet the ends of justice.

¶19

: O R D E R :

¶20

(i) The DRB shall hear the parties and will take a decision on the disputed claims of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than within a period of eight weeks from the date this order is made available to the DRB/respondents.

¶21

(ii) All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

¶22

(iii) Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶23

(iv) No costs.

¶24

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

¶25

Page 2 of 2

¶26

Rajesh Chittewan, PA

Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gurcharanlal Pritamlal Marwah vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary (Transport) and Ors.

Leonell John vs the Chief Registrar, Birth and Death Dept. the Pimpri Chinchwad Muni. Corp. and Anr.

Sisters of Our Lady Fatima Thr. Its Managing Trustee vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Govind Sawant and Ors. vs Mumbai International Airport Ltd.

Moonlight Developers vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 19

Leonell John vs the Chief Registrar, Birth and Death Dept. the Pimpri Chinchwad Muni. Corp. and Anr.