Dismissed¶66

M/S Tirupati Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC29 Jun 2025WPC/781/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPC 781/2020, 782/2020, 2118/2021; Tirupati Buildcon; Gordhandas Gobindram Engineers And Contractors; Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam 1983 ultra vires; clause 28 agreement; clause 1.17 agreement; Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 resort to arbitration; PWD contract dispute; defective prayer unspecified Rule; casual drafting; dismissal with liberty to file afresh; cost Rs.10,000/- each; Government School for Visual and Hearing Impaired Tifra Bilaspur; Ramesh Sinha Chief Justice; Ravindra Kumar Agrawal; decided 30.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file fresh writ petitions with appropriate prayer, subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- each as cost; annexed documents to be returned to petitioners' counsel after retaining photocopies. ¶66

M/S Tirupati Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Arbitration | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to file fresh writ petitions with appropriate prayer, subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- each as cost; annexed documents to be returned to petitioners' counsel after retaining photocopies.

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, and clause 28 of the agreement (clause 1.17 in the Gordhandas petition), are ultra vires the Constitution of India, and whether the petitioners have liberty to resort to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. +1 more

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The prayers were defective because they did not specify which provision or Rule of the Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 was sought to be declared ultra vires; the drafting was casual and wasted the Court's time.

¶65

Key takeaways

On this ground alone the writ petitions were dismissed, with liberty to file fresh petitions with appropriate prayer subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- each as cost, payable into the Registry and transmitted to the Government School for Visual and Hearing Impaired, Tifra, District Bilaspur (C.G.).ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Ramesh Sinha, CJ and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J) dismissed WPC No. 781 of 2020, WPC No. 782 of 2020 (M/s Tirupati Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.) and WPC No. 2118 of 2021 (M/s Gordhandas Gobindram Engineers And Contractors), which sought declaration that the Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 and arbitration/agreement clauses (clause 28; clause 1.17) were ultra vires the Constitution of India and that the petitioners could resort to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Dismissal rested solely on the defective nature of the prayers: neither the Act's specific provision nor Rule assailed was identified, the drafting was casual, and repeated adjournments had been sought since filing on 14.02.2020. Liberty was granted to file afresh with appropriate prayers on deposit of Rs.10,000/- each as cost, directed to the Government School for Visual and Hearing Impaired, Tifra; annexed documents were ordered returned after photocopies retained. The constitutional validity of the 1983 Act was not adjudicated.

2025:CGHC:29017-DB

NAFR

Digitally signed by BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.30 18:49:29 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 781 of 2020

¶7

M/s Tirupati Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., A Private Limited Company Having Its Registered Office At Opp. Railway Station P. O. Burhar District Shahdol (M.P.) Through Its Managing Director Padam Kumar Singhania S/o Late Shrawan Kumar Singhania Aged About 60 Years., District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh

¶8

--- Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Chief Engineer, PWD Bilaspur Zone Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - The Superintending Engineer, PWD Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - The Executive Engineer, PWD Pendra Division Pendra Road, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶14

--- Respondent(s)

¶15

WPC No. 782 of 2020

¶16

¶17

--- Petitioner(s)

¶18

¶19

versus

¶20

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶21

2 - The Chief Engineer, PWD Bilaspur Zone Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶22

3 - The Superintending Engineer, PWD Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶23

4 - The Executive Engineer, PWD Pendra Division Pendra Road, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶24

--- Respondent(s)

¶25

WPC No. 2118 of 2021

¶26

M/s Gordhandas Gobindram Engineers And Contractors, A Partnership Firm Having Its Registered Office At 52, Jairam Complex, Sharada Chowk, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Through Dheeraj Jadhwani, S/o Amrit G Jadhwani, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Ahmedji Colony, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶27

--- Petitioner(s)

¶28

Versus

¶29

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Chief Engineer Bridge Construction Circle, Public Works Department, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶30

3 - The Superintending Engineer PW Bridge Circle, Raigarh, DistrictRaigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶31

4 - The Executive Engineer PWD Bridge Division Raigarh, District - Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶32

--- Respondent(s)

¶33

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.J.K.Gilda, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Harsh Wardhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General

¶34

¶35

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶36

Order on Board

¶37

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶38

30.06.2025

¶39

Heard Mr.J.K.Gilda, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Harsh Wardhan, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State.

¶40

Petitioner Ms Tirupati Buildcon Pvt. Ltd filed the writ petition with following reliefs:-

¶41

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or direction thereby calling for the records in respect of the grievance of the petitioner.

¶42

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (ANNEXURE-P/6) to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India.

¶43

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare clause 28 of the agreement as contained in ANNEXURE - P/2 to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India.

¶44

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to adjudicate and declare that the petitioner herein has the liberty to resort to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for

¶45

¶46

10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶47

10.6 That, the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case may further be pleased to grant cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

¶48

Petitioner Ms Tirupati Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. filed the writ petition with following reliefs:-

¶49

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or direction thereby calling for the records in respect of the grievance of the petitioner.

¶50

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (ANNEXURE-P/6) to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India.

¶51

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare clause 28 of the agreement as contained in ANNEXURE - P/2 to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India.

¶52

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to adjudicate and declare that the petitioner herein has the liberty to resort to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for

¶53

10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶54

¶55

10.6 That, the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case may further be pleased to grant cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

¶56

Petitioner M/s Gordhandas Gobindram Engineers And Contractors filed writ petition with following reliefs:-

¶57

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or Order or direction thereby calling for the records in respect of the grievance of the petitioner.

¶58

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (ANNEXURE-P/5) to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India.

¶59

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare clause 1.17 of the agreement as contained in ANNEXURE - P/3 to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India.

¶60

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to adjudicate and declare that the petitioner herein has the liberty to resort to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for settlement of disputes.

¶61

10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶62

10.6 That, the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case may further be pleased to grant cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

¶63

From perusal of the prayers and pleadings made in the instant

¶64

¶65

writ petitions, it transpires that the petitioners have prayed for declaration of the Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 to be ultra vires to the Constitution of India, but it has not been mentioned that which Rule of the Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 to be declared ultra vires, which goes to show that the prayer drafted by learned counsel for the petitioners is in a very casual manner and further wasted the precious time of the Court as these writ petitions were filed on 14.02.2020 and learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for time on many occasions, as such, in the opinion of this Court, the prayer is defective one.

¶66

Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed on this ground alone with liberty to file afresh petitions with appropriate prayer, subject to depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- each as cost by the petitioners in the Registry of this Court and the same shall be transmitted to the Government School for Visual and Hearing Impaired, Tifra, District - Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶67

Documents annexed with these petitions shall be returned to the counsel for the petitioners after retaining the photocopies of the same.

¶68

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶69

Bablu

M/S Tirupati Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Tirupati Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Similar cases

Amit Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishnu Narayan Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Jadit Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

M/s Tirupati Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Madhu Agrawal (Proprietor - M/S Madhu Enterprises) Vs Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sharma

Virendra Bahadur Singh Vs Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sharma