Disposed¶14

M/S Sarada Construction v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC15 Jun 2026WPA/12068/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Termination of contract; writ maintainability versus arbitration Clause 63 of standard general conditions of contract; representation dated April 18, 2026 to Senior Divisional Engineer; direction to refer representation to Chief Engineer or Divisional Railway Manager; South Metro Railway, Kolkata; disposed of without merits; Krishna Rao, J.; WPA 12068 of 2026; decision date 15.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Senior Divisional Engineer, South Metro Railway, Kolkata to refer the petitioner's representation dated April 18, 2026 to the Chief Engineer or Divisional Railway Manager, as the case may be, for decision in accordance with law. ¶14

M/S Sarada Construction Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

S/L 9 15.06.2026 Court. No. 25 suvayan

¶2

WPA 12068 of 2026

¶3

M/s Sarada Construction Vs.

¶4

Union of India & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy Mr. Sarbananda Sanyal Mr. Samrat Chakraborty Mr. Akash Kr. Ghosh Ms. Priyanka Banerjee

¶6

…for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Sukanta Chakrabarty Mr. Partha Sarathi Mondal

¶8

…for U.O.I.

¶9

Though the petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the termination of the contract.

¶10

At the very outset, learned advocate appearing for the respondent authorities raised the preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ application and submits that as per the standard general conditions of contract there is an arbitration clause, if the petitioner is having disputes with regard to the termination, the petitioner has to approach the appropriate authority for arbitration but instead of taking the benefit of Clause 63, the petitioner has filed the present writ application.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the termination of the contract, the petitioner has made a representation to the Senior Divisional Engineer on April 18, 2026 but the same has not yet been considered. The Senior Divisional Engineer ought to have referred the matter to the Chief Engineer for consideration but the same has not been done.

¶12

¶13

Considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶14

Without going into the merit of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Senior Divisional Engineer, South Metro Railway, Kolkata to refer the representation submitted by the petitioner on April 18, 2026 to the Chief Engineer or Divisional Railway Manager as the case may be and the said authority shall decide the representation in accordance with law.

¶15

WPA 12068 of 2026 is disposed of.

¶16

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities.

¶17

(Krishna Rao, J.)

M/S Sarada Construction v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sarada Construction v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The President Gayaganga Navajeevan Rural Health and Development Society and Anr. Vs Subhas Singha and Anr.

Suchitra Agarwal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Monalisa Debnath Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Pavan Supply Corporation Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sitaram Construction, Government Contractor and General Order Suppliers and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Debabrata Roy Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.