Dismissed

M/s Vikas Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 May 2017WA/143/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh in Writ Appeal No. 143 of 2017 dismissed the writ petition, affirming the Single Judge. The Court held that since arbitral proceedings were available and the Appellant had participated, the matter must be decided by the Arbitrator within two months, noting that factual disputes regarding work completion and damages cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Appellant to approach the Arbitrator/appeal authority for final disposal of the matter within two months.

M/s Vikas Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Company and Corporate | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Appeal No. 143 of 2017

¶5

M/s Vikas Agrawal A Class B Contractor, Through Its Partner Vikas Agrawal, S/o Late Omprakash Agrawal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Near Advocate Rahman House, Danipara Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh).

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

¶9

The Engineer In Chief, Public Works Department Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

¶10

Chief Engineer, Public Works Department Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).

¶11

Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department Bilaspur Circle Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).

¶12

Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Raigarh Division, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh).

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Appellant : Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Prafull N. Bharat, Additional Advocate General.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, Judge.

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice

¶18

05/05/2017

¶19

1. We have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and the Learned Additional Advocate General.

¶20

2. In this appeal, the Appellant impugns the judgment of the Learned Single Judge refusing to entertain the matter in writ jurisdiction noticing that there are arbitral proceedings/appeal provided in terms of the contract between the parties.

¶21

¶22

Through order dated 7.4.2017, the Appellant was directed to appear before the Arbitrator/appellate authority yesterday.

¶23

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he has a copy of the proceedings which would show that the Appellant had appeared before the Arbitrator/appellate authority and has thus, participated in the arbitral proceedings/appeal. That being so, we are of the view that having regard to the nature of contract and the issues involved, the Arbitrator/appellate authority should forthwith proceed to dispose of the arbitral proceedings/appeal at the earliest.

¶24

4. On the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the arbitral proceedings/appeal ought to be concluded within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. This writ appeal is so ordered, affirming the order of the Learned Single Judge.

¶25

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that a work completion certificate was issued way back in March, 2016 and certain actions were thereafter taken at the instance of the department including for rectification of the road. The Appellant says that the road is a rural road and unexpected damage would have occurred by reason of diversion of traffic, which, according to him, was done. These are issues of facts which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Appellant makes any application before the Learned Arbitrator/appellate authority for consideration of interim release of funds on the basis of completion certificate, it will be open to the Arbitrator/appellate authority to pass any interim award/decision as may be justified on the basis of records and in accordance with law, in that regard.

¶26

Sd/Sd/(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (P. Sam Koshy) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

¶27

Anu

M/s Vikas Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Vikas Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Vs Gagan Resources Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Sangeeta Chandrakar Vs Steel Authority Of India

Smt. Sunita Shrivastava Vs District Judge

Yogendranath Pandey Anors Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Sunita Chatkol Vs Ms. Sagar Raj

Rahul Bhavsagar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh