Dismissed¶76

Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Apr 2026WPC/2846/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ maintainability of contractual money claim; recovery of outstanding invoice dues under rate contract/purchase orders; medical equipment procurement by CGMSCL for DKS Hospital; clause 21 dispute resolution/arbitration mechanism not availed; alternative remedy; Article 226 extraordinary jurisdiction; FIR Crime No. 70/2019 P.S. Gol Bazar; alleged embezzlement of Rs. 50 crore; investigation of 2018-2019 NITs; writ petitions dismissed with liberty to pursue contractual dispute resolution; Kerala SEB; Joshi Technologies; Skanray Technologies ARBR 13/2022.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner(s) to take recourse to the dispute resolution mechanism provided under the contract/agreement, if so advised. ¶76

Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of… — Company and Corporate | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; liberty reserved to the petitioner(s) to take recourse to the dispute resolution mechanism provided under the contract/agreement, if so advised.

¶76

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions are maintainable for a direction to pay outstanding invoice dues for medical equipment supplied and services rendered under rate contracts/purchase orders, i.e., a purely contractual money claim against the respondent-Corporation/State. +2 more

¶71

Court's answer

The petitioners' claims for outstanding dues per the invoices raised (Rs. 5,00,33,500/- in WPC No. 750/2021 and Rs. 2,96,22,233/- in WPC No. 2846/2021) are purely a contractual dispute and issue of recovery of money against the supply of goods under the contract.

¶75

Ratio / Principle

Clause 21 of the tender document provides for resolution of disputes, which the petitioners did not take recourse to; the claims therefore fall to be pursued through the contractual dispute resolution mechanism rather than through writ jurisdiction.

¶74

Key takeaways

The Court recorded that it could not ascertain the exact amount required to be paid by the respondents/State or the respondent-Corporation to the petitioners, as the respondents had not admitted the dues in clear terms, the dispute arising out of contractual obligations.ratio¶72
Both writ petitions were found to lack merit and were dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to the dispute resolution mechanism provided under the contract/agreement, if so advised.ratio¶76

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order in WPC No. 750 of 2021 (Nipro Medical India Pvt. Ltd.) and WPC No. 2846 of 2021 (Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd.). The petitioners, successful L-1 bidders in tenders floated by Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (CGMSCL) for supply of medical equipment to DKS Hospital and other medical institutions, completed supplies under two and twelve purchase orders respectively and raised invoices, but were paid only partially; outstanding dues of Rs. 5,00,33,500/- and Rs. 2,96,22,233/- remained unpaid, payments having been withheld in view of FIR Crime No. 70/2019 (P.S. Gol Bazar) alleging misappropriation/embezzlement of about Rs. 50 crore by the then Superintendent of DKS Hospital and pendency of investigation into the 2018-2019 NITs. Held (Ramesh Sinha, CJ and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J; order per Ramesh Sinha, CJ): the claims are purely contractual disputes and issues of recovery of money against supply of goods under the contract; clause 21 of the tender document provides a dispute resolution mechanism which the petitioners did not invoke; the exact amount payable could not be ascertained as the respondents had not admitted the dues in clear terms. Writ petitions dismissed, with liberty to take recourse to the dispute resolution mechanism provided under the contract/agreement. Decisions of the Apex Court in Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, Director of Agriculture v. M.V. Ramachandran, M.P. Power Management Co. v. Sky Power, PHR Invent v. UCO Bank, Subhash Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam and UOI v. Puna Hinda relied upon.

2026:CGHC:18092-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 750 of 2021

¶6

Nipro Medical India Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Sachin Bagh, Aged About 38 Years, S/o Late Mr. Sundermani Bagh, Having My O昀케ce At Shop No. 73 And 74 Aushadhi Vatika , New Medical Complex , Dumartarai , Raipur , Chhattisgarh. 492001

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director North West Commercial Complex, Sector 27, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh. 3 - General Manger Equipment, Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited, North West Commercial Complex, Sector 27, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh. 4 - Principal Secretary Finance Department , State Of Chhattisgarh, Director Chhattisgarh Medical Serives Corporation Limited North West Commercial Complex, Sector 27, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh.

¶11

5 - DKS Post Graduate Institute And Research Center Through Its Medical Superintendent , Dks Bhawan, Shastri Chowk, Raipur , Chhattisgarh

¶12

--- Respondent(s)

¶13

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Saloni Jain, Advocate For Respondent No. 1, 4 and 5/ : Mr. P.K.Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General. State For Respondent No. 2 and 3/ : Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan and Mr. Trivikram CGMSCL Nayak, Advocates.

¶15

WPC No. 2846 of 2021

¶16

Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Vikas Sharma , Aged About 37 Years, S/o Shri Som Parkash Sharma, O昀케ce At 11th Floor, Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan , 28 Barakhamba Road, New Delhi 110001.

¶17

--- Petitioner(s)

¶18

Versus

¶19

1- State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶20

2- Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director North West Commercial Complex , Sector 27, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

3- General Manager Equipment, Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited. North West Commercial Complex , Sector 27, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶22

4- Principal Secretary Finance Department, State Of Chhattisgarh Director Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited. North West Commercial Complex , Sector 27, Atal Nagar, Raipur , Chhattisgarh.

¶23

5- DKS Post Graduate Institute And Research Center Through Its Medical Superintendent , Dks Bhawan, Shastri Chowk Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶24

¶25

6- Government Medical College Ambikapur Through Its Medical Superintendent , Kanyaparisar Road, Gangapur, Ambikapur , District Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

¶26

--- Respondent(s)

¶27

(Cause Title Taken from Case Information System)

¶28

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1, 4, 5 & 6	: Mr. P.K.Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General.
For Respondent No. 2 and 3/ CGMSCL	: Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan and Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocates.

¶29

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

¶30

Order on Board

¶31

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶32

21/04/2026

¶33

1. Heard Ms. Saloni Jain and Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.K.Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, and Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan, Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned counsel for the respondentCGMSCL.

¶34

2. Since the facts and issue involved in these petitions are identical, they are being considered and decided by this common order.

¶35

3. In WPC No. 750/2021, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):

¶36

“ 10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for record of 10.1 entire tender process which is subject matter of the present petition.

¶37

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Corporation to make good remittance of the payment pending to be made to petitioner for the services already rendered by the petitioner.

¶38

¶39

10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Corporation to make the outstanding payments as per the invoices raised by the Petitioner alongwith interest.10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem 昀椀t and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶40

10.5 Cost of the petition.”

¶41

4. In WPC No. 2846/2021, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):

¶42

“10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for record of entire tender process which is subject matter of the present petition.

¶43

10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Corporation to make good remittance of the payment pending to be made to petitioner for the goods and services already rendered by the petitioner.

¶44

10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Corporation to make the outstanding payments as per the invoices raised by the Petitioner alongwith interest.

¶45

10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner. which this Hon'ble Court may deem 昀椀t and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

¶46

10.5 Cost of the petition.”

¶47

5. The facts, as projected by the petitioner(s) are that the respondentChhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (for short, the Corporation) 昀氀oated multiple Notices Inviting Tenders for the purchase of numerous medical tools and equipment for the procurement and distribution of the equipments and then infrastructure services to DKS Hospital and other Medical Departments of the State. The idea of the State, probably, was to furnish the Hospitals of the State with super

¶48

¶49

specialty equipments and top most infrastructure and facilities, so as, to match to the qualities of the best hospitals of India. In furtherance of the said scheme, the respondent-Corporation invited proposals (bids) for the purpose of executing rate contract from the prospective organizations. The petitioners applied for the same and were the successful bidder/ lowest bidder (L1) and subsequently they were given was given two purchase orders (in WPC No. 750/2021) and 12 purchase orders (in WPC No. 2846/2021). The petitioners successfully completed all the purchase orders and delivered the requisite equipments in time to the concerned medical units of the State. The respondents had never disputed the quality or pointed out any defect in the equipments delivered by the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners raised invoices against the said purchase orders as per the terms of the contract. However, the respondents only made partial payment of the bills and never attempted to repay the remaining amount. The petitioenrs made several requests and reminders to the concerned Departments of the respondents for the release of the remaining amount due against the said tenders but to no avail. Despite repeated requests and reminders from the petitioner to release the balance amount, the respondent Department did not pursue the same. The petitioners duly attended the equipment supplied by them and provided the regular servicing, repairs and the preventive maintenance as per the terms of the agreement despite the non payment of the invoices. Aggrieved by the non payment of the legitimate dues, the petitioners made a representations before the concerned Department of the Respondent but to no avail.

¶50

6. Ms. Saloni Jain and Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel for the respective petitioners that till date, the respondents have failed to make good their liabilities which raises a reasonable apprehension, and

¶51

¶52

keeping in view the high-handedness of the respondents, it is clear that they would never make good their liabilities. Under the peculiar circumstance, the petitioner have no alternative e昀케cacious remedy but to approach this Hon'ble Court. The State being the guardian of its citizens and being the trustee of the 昀椀nance of the State is expected to act in utmost sincerity and transparency in every walk more-so when it relates to a health and welfare of its citizen which is of prime importance for nation as whole and State in particular and shall serve the citizens. The amount charged by the petitioners is as per the terms of the contract and the same has never been disputed by the respondent authorities. After a considerable amount of time, wherein the respondent authorities have even called upon the petitioner to adhere to the regular servicing of the equipments, it can be safely assumed that the amount claimed by the petitioner is an undisputed amount and therefore the petitioner is entitled to claim the legitimate dues from the respondent Department. After taking the supplies and receiving the services, the State/respondents as well as the respondent/Corporation cannot shy away from their responsibility of making the payment to the petitioners for which they are legally entitled. In respect of WPC No. 750/2021, it is to be noted that the respondent No. 2 has not paid the outstanding invoices amounting to Rs. 5,00,33,500/- and Rs. 2,96,22,233/- in respect of WPC No. 2846/2021, which is an undisputed amount charged as per the terms of the contract. Such conduct of the respondent/State as well as respondent/Corporation is illegally depriving the petitioners of their livelihood. Even if the claim of money arises out of contractual obligation, then the Courts may intervene where the action of the State is arbitrary which is the case in hand. Hence, these petitions deserve to be allowed.

¶53

7. On the other hand, Mr. P.K.Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General

¶54

¶55

appearing for the State/respondents, submits that in these cases, the respondent-Corporation would be the contesting respondent so far as the issuance of tender, purchase of machinery and pendency of dues against the installment of machinery is concerned. The respondent Corporation has been incorporated on 7.10.2010 under the Companies Act 1956 and is a Company operating under Health & Family Welfare Department of Chhattisgarh. The respondent-Corporation has been established to procure, test, store and supply of all kinds and variety of generic drugs and medicines, suture and surgical items to the various Health facilities (Medical Colleges, District Hospitals, CHCs and PHCs) as per indent received from Health Department. The respondent Corporation had 昀氀oated a bunch of tenders for supply of medical equipments and pursuant thereof the petitioners submitted their bid and upon successful in the tender process, an agreement has been executed between the petitioners and respondent Corporation. Thereafter, work order has been issued in favour of the petitioners by the respondent Corporation. The petitioners 昀椀rm state that they raised invoices against the said purchase orders as per the terms of the contract; however, the Corporation only made partial payment of the total amount billed. Thereafter, the respondent-Corporation never made any attempt to repay the remaining amount to the petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioners submitted representation to clear the outstanding dues to the respondent Corporation. It is also pertinent to submit here that the identical grievances have been raised by other Companies, which have been denied the outstanding dues as similar to the petitioners on the ground that, an FIR bearing Crime No. 70/2019 has been registered against the then Superintendent of the respondent Hospital under section 409, 420, 467, 468, 120B of IPC at Police Station Gol Bazar,

¶56

¶57

Raipur which is pending investigation by the police authorities regarding certain irregularities in purchase of medical equipment. In relation to the instant issue, a similar and identical writ petition was preferred by one Bagree Enterprises, which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 2215/2020 before this Hon'ble Court and the same came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 27.10.2020. Upon veri昀椀cation of the records it is revealed that, all the NIT 昀氀oated during the year 2018-2019 by the respondent Corporation are under investigation by Police Station Golbazar as there is an o昀昀ence registered by the Police Station Golbazar, District Raipur (C.G.) for o昀昀ence punishable under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 120B of IPC against the then Superintendent of DKS Post Graduate Institute & Research Center, Raipur. It is also pertinent to submit here that in the aforesaid FIR relating to misappropriation and embezzlement of Rs. 50.00 crore by the then Superintendent of Respondent No. 4 Hospital, namely Dr. Punit Gupta under various work including tender works for purchasing medicines, drugs and medical equipment is being investigated. The Fact Finding Committee (Inquiry Committee as constituted vide order dated 15.02.2019) has submitted its report before the State Government, wherein, the misappropriation and embezzlement of government fund has been prima-facie revealed as a consequence of which the State Government has directed for registration of FIR so that the guilty can be brought to book and the misappropriation of exchequer funds can be accounted against the culprits, therefore, the claim of the petitioners regarding payment of outstanding dues has been refused by the respondent-Corporation. Since the aforesaid dispute is under investigation by the concerned Police Station for unearthing the huge misappropriation of Government fund, therefore, until and unless such

¶58

¶59

dispute is not ascertained / cleared, the respondent/State herein cannot extend any funds for payment of dues, as is alleged by the petitioners as there is possibility of huge 昀椀nancial loss to the State Government. Moreover, it is relevant to highlight that in compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Court in WPC 2215/2020, the Respondent No 4/DKS has already rejected the claim of the petitioner in the said case vide order dated 31.08.2021 on the grounds that the payment cannot be released as for the said procurement an FIR has been registered for allegation of irregularity of Rs 50 Crores by PS Gol Bazar for o昀昀ences under 409, 420, 467, 468, 120 B IPC. On account of the report submitted by 03 members committee, serious irregularity and violation of purchase rules for personal gain have been identi昀椀ed, which also includes criminal o昀昀ences, therefore, the FIR have been lodged. It is submitted that the contents of the present matter clearly involves seriously disputed question of facts. Moreover the petitioners have remedy available under the Terms of Contract entered with respondent Corporation. It is settled proposition of law that, in any commercial contract of a dispute arises then for settlement and resolution of disputes the parties to contract cannot raise grievance under extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

¶60

8. Mr. Raghavendra Pradhan and Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/CGMSCL, in addition to what has been submitted by Mr. Bhaduri, would submit that these petitions are not maintainable as the present involves contractual and disputed matters. Further, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners as the NIT was issued in the year 2017 and only in the year 2021, the petitioners have approached this Court for payment of the alleged

¶61

¶62

outstanding dues. The petitioners have further alternative remedy as the NIT itself provides for arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. As per clause 21 of Section III provides for a dispute resolution mechanism vide Arbitration and the nature of dispute is such, which can very well be relegated to arbitration proceedings. Mr. Pradhan and Mr. Nayak would submit that these petitions deserve to be dismissed as they involve disputed questions of facts, the 昀椀nal payment, if at all is to be made by DKS Hospital, when the agreement entered between the parties provides for a dispute resolution mechanism vis-à-vis hence parties must exercise their statutory e昀케cacious alternate remedy of arbitration, there is unexplained inordinate delay in approaching the Hon'ble High Court, similarly placed parties in dispute have been referred to Arbitration. The instant matters are a purely contractual one dealing with money claim of the petitioners and that no exceptional circumstances have been made out for exercise of writ powers in money related matter. It is clear that no case has been made out by the petitioner for interference in the matter and these petitions deserve to be dismissed sans merit. In support of their contentions, they would place reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Kerala SE v. Kurien E. Kalathil {(2000) 6 SCC 293}, Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India {(2015) 7 SCC 728}, Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T.Murali Babu {(2014) 4 SCC 108}, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd. {2021 SCC OnLine SC 884}, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. {(1985) 1 SCC 260}, PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank {2024 SCC OnLine SC 528}, and an order of this Court in M/s. Skanray Technologies Ltd. v. Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Ltd. {ARBR 13/2022, decided on 04.12.2023}.

¶63

¶64

9. In rebuttal, Ms. Saloni, learned counsel for the petitioner {in WPC No. 750/2021} placing reliance on the rejoinder 昀椀led, submits that there is no disputed facts regarding the quality of equipment supplied or the amount due to the petitioner and therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable. Clause 21 of Section III of the Tender Document, titled ‘Resolution of Disputes’ has not been speci昀椀cally incorporated in the superseding Rate Contract that governs the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. General reference to another contract (tender document in this case) will not have the e昀昀ect of incorporating arbitration clause into the superseding Rate Contract and such arbitration clause can only be incorporated by speci昀椀c reference and not a general reference. Further, the arbitration clause in the tender document is completely inconsistent with the dispute resolution clause in superseding rate contract. The rate contract between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 refers dispute arising out of the tender exclusively to Civil Courts in Raipur only and does not incorporate the arbitration clause from the tender documents. The arbitration clause in the tender document is not a valid and conclusive one. The tender documents and the rate contract provides that the payment for the equipment supplied by the petitioner is to be made by respondents including respondent No. 2 to 4. Further, even in contractual matters and availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for entertaining the petition and as such, she prays that these petitions may be allowed. In support of her contentions, she places reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Unitech Limited & Others v. Telangana State Industrial Corporation & Others {(2021) 16 SCC 35}, Surya Construction v. State of U.P. {(2019) 16 SCC 794}, B.G.M. & M-RPL-JMCT (JV) v. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. {2025 SCC OnLine SC 1471}, Wellington

¶65

¶66

Associates Ltd. v. Kirti Mehta {(2000) 4 SCC 272}, M.R.Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. v. Somm Datt Builders {(2009) 7 SCC 696}, NBCC (India) Ltd. v. Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. {2024) 7 SCC 174, M.P. Power Management Company Ltd. Jabalpur v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd & Others {(2023) 2 SCC 703}, Union of India v. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd. {(2011) 5 SCC 697} and Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Others {2012 SCC OnLine Raj 3132} .

¶67

10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the respondent/State and respondent/Corporation and have also perused the materials available on record.

¶68

11. In nutshell, pursuant to tenders 昀氀oated by the respondent-Corporation, various tenders were 昀氀oated and the petitioners were selected as L-1 in their respective tenders and they were issued the work order / purchase order and the petitioners duly made the supplies of medical equipments/ machines to the respondent-Corporation and the respondent-DKS Hospital. The dispute between the parties is that the respondentCorporation has not made the full and 昀椀nal payment of the supplies made and the services rendered by the petitioners and has been kept pending for a long period of time. The contention of the respondent/State as well as the respondent-Corporation is that there has been an embezzlement of funds to the tune of Rs. 50-60 Crores (Approx) at the DKS Hospital related to the tenders including the tenders at hand and the then concerned o昀케cials of DKS Hospital, without due approval and sanction, had issued requisition for tenders and as a corollary the tenders allotted to all the parties/allottees are under scanner. The investigating agencies in the State have also registered an FIR bearing Crime No. 70 of 2019 registered at P.S.- Golbazar, District- Raipur and

¶69

¶70

the matter is still under investigation. Keeping in mind the entire role of the then Medical Superintendent and Administration at DKS Hospital with regard to the issuance of tenders without due approval and sanction, the payments as such have not been cleared by the authorities and have been withheld on ground of ongoing investigation, etc.

¶71

12. Another facts of the matter is that the present dispute arises out of contractual obligations and this Court cannot ascertain as to what is the exact amount which is required to be paid by the respondents/State or the respondent/Corporation to the petitioners as the respondents have not admitted the dues in clear terms. Further, clause 21 of the e-tender for the rate contract and supply of medical equipments for DKS super speciality centre to Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited provides for resolution of disputes. It provides that the purchaser and the supplier shall make every e昀昀ort to resolve amicably by direct informal negotiation any disagreement or dispute arising between them under or in connection with the contract. If after 30 days from the commencement of such information negotiations, the purchaser and the supplier have been unable to resolve amicably a contract dispute, either party may require that the dispute be referred for resolution to the formal mechanism. These mechanisms may include, but or not limited to, conciliation mediated by a third party, adjudication in an agreed national form and national arbitration and that the venue of arbitration shall be Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶72

13. This Court, in a similar set of facts, has dismissed the appeal 昀椀led by the appellant therein, in light of the decision of the Apex Court in Kerala SEB ( supra ) , Joshi Technologies International Inc. ( supra ), Director of Agriculture v. M.V.Ramachandran {SLP(C) No. 18371/2021, dated 17.03.2023}, M.P.Power Management Co. Ltd. v. Sky Power

¶73

¶74

Southeast Solar India (P) Ltd. {(2023) 2 SCC 703}, PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank {2024 SCC OnLine SC 528}, Subhash Jain v. Rajeshwari Shivam {2021 SCC OnLine SC 562}, Union of India v. Puna Hinda {(2021) 10 SCC 690}.

¶75

14. In the present cases, clause 21 of the tender document provides for resolution of disputes which the petitioners have not taken recourse to. The petitioners have claimed outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.5,00,33,500/- and Rs. 2,96,22,233/-, respectively per the invoices raised by them which in the opinion of this Court, is purely a contractual dispute and issue of recovery of money against the supply of goods under the contract.

¶76

15. In view of the above discussion, we do not 昀椀nd any merit in these petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner(s) to take recourse to the dispute resolution mechanism, as provided under the contract/agreement, if so advised.

¶77

Sd/- Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶78

Manpreet / Amit

¶79

AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
Digitally signed
by AMIT KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2026.04.25
11:39:28 +0530

Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karl Storz Endoscopy India 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Divisional Secretary, Bhartiya Postal Employees Association (Group -C) Durg Division Vs Union of India

Smt. Anita Sinha Vs Johar Tekam

Aman Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Priya Mishra Vs University Grant Commission

Mangal Ram Usendi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hasdeo Aranya Bachao Sangharsh Samiti Vs Union of India