Petitioner sought specific performance of a work order via writ. Court held Article 226 remedy is discretionary and inappropriate for commercial disputes with alternate remedies, dismissing the writ without prejudice.
Writ petition not entertained; petitioner directed to take other available legal remedies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified
Signing Date:16.10.2024 16:52:42 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as perthe physical file an d no page is missing. W.P. (C) 8034/2017
their website inviting Expressionof Interest (EOI) from PWOs/PSUs for execution of, construction work/ construction of building/Campus Developmentand Repair/Maintenance. 3. The petitionersubmittedits EOI for empanelmenton 06.03.2017and, was invitedto make a powerpointpresentation. 4. After the petitioner had made its presentation,the petitioner was issueda letterdated 16.05.2017,callingupon the petitionerto quote the rates for the works as specifiedtherein.The petitionerrespondedto the aforesaid e-mail and provided the quotations for its Consultancy/Professionalfees. Thereafter,on 15.06.2017,the respondentissuedthe followingletter:-
"No. E&M 10(19)/2017
Dated: 15.06.2017
Shri Shamim Ahmad, Additional General Manager, EngineeringProjects(India)Ltd. Core-3, Scope Complex, 7- Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 [email protected]
Sub: EngagementofAgencyfor Constructionof New Campusesat MaidanGarhi New Delhi and Kakinada (Andhra Pradesh) (Award of Work)
Sir,
Please refer to your Financial Bid dated 22.05.2017 for the subject cited above. This is to inform you that the Institute is pleasedto selectEngineeringProjects(India) Ltd. as agency for Constructionof New Campusesat Maidan Garhi, New Delhi and Kakinada(AndhraPradesh)as per terms and conditionas indicated in the said EOI.
Pa^e2of5
fV.P. fC) 8034/2017
You are requestedto depute your technicalteam to ascertain the work urgently. Kindly acknowledgethe receipt of this work order and send backthe duplicatecopy ofthe orderduly signedand stampedas a tokenof acceptanceof this order. Thanking you, Yours faithfully (NaliniMeshram) Administrative Officer"
Pas:e3of5
W.P. fC) R0^4/2017 •
regard to a commercial matter relating to consultancy for construction works. Aplain readingof the communicationdated 15.06.2017(which was subsequentlywithdrawn),indicatesthat the petitionerwas informedthat he was selected for the works in question and was requested to depute the technicalteam to ascertainthe work urgently. Accordingto the petitioner, the said communicationis a work order resulting in a concluded contract betweenthe parties,whichcouldnot be unilaterallyterminated. 9. Without going into the question whether the communicationdated 15.06.2017 constitutes a concluded contract, it is apparent that the controversy involved in the present case pertains to a commercial transaction between the parties. Even if the petitioner's contention is acceptedthat the partieshad enteredinto abindingcontract,the same would be determinable.The reliefsought,by the petitioneramounts to directinga specificperformanceofthe same, which is not permissible.Further,it is not disputed that the petitionerhas an alternate remedy. It is also well settled that the remedy under Article226 is a discretionaryone and ordinarily,this Court would not entertain a commercialdispute, where the parties have an .ialternate effective remedy.
4of5
W.P. (C) 8034/2017
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SEPTEMBER 11,2017 pkv
I
Pa^eSofS
W.P. rc) S034/2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 226 Court can entertain a commercial dispute where the petitioner has an alternate remedy.
Whether principles of natural justice require High Court intervention in withdrawal of a work order letter.
Whether the principle from KSL & Industries applies to writ petitions under Article 226 in commercial contracts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
KSL & Industries ltd V. National Textile Corporation LtdReferred¶6
KSL & Industries ltd V. National Textile Corporation Ltd : 2012 (3) Arb. LR 470 (Delhi)
S. N. Mukherjee v. Union of IndiaReferred¶7
SM Mukherjee v. Union of India : AIR 1990 SC 1984 · Who else cites this
Ashish Gupta v. IBP Co. Ltd. & Anr.Referred¶7
Ashish Gupta v. IBP Co. Ltd. & Anr. : 125 (2005) DLT 298 · Who else cites this
Engineering Projects (India) Ltd.
Institute
Vibhu Bakshu
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
