The petitioner, a sub-contractor, sought recovery of dues from DMRC. The Court held that no privity of contract existed between the petitioner and DMRC, and the contract contained an arbitration clause. Since the claim was disputed and contractual in nature, writ jurisdiction was not exercisable, and the petition was dismissed.
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.
$~68
K R ANAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Bhushan Bhatia, Advocate
versus
DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Tarun Johri, Mr. Ankur Gupta and Mr. Vishwajeet Tyagi, Advocates for R-1 and 2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
CM APPL. 6965/2024 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1680/2024 & CM APPL. 6966/2024
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 7
W.P.(C) 1680/2024
Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Da te:1 7.02.2024 16:05
Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the nature and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 7
W.P.(C) 1680/2024
Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Da te:1 7.02.2024 16:05
partners of the joint venture Respondent No.3/FEMC-Pratibha JV is not traceable, and therefore, the Petitioner has been constrained to approached this Court for release of funds by Respondent No 1.
“ 24.0 Applicable law and Arbitration
This Contract shall be governed by and take effect in accordance with the Indian Laws and all disputes shall be subject to Mumbai Jurisdiction only.
In the event of any dispute or difference between M/s FEMC-PRATIBHA JV (First Party) and M/s K.R. Anand (Second Party) which cannot be amicably settled between the Parties, arising at any time before the date of completion or termination of the contract, all disputes, whether in contract or at law, arising from or in connection with this Contract shall be referred to
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 7
W.P.(C) 1680/2024
Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Da te:1 7.02.2024 16:05
and finally and exclusively settled by a panel of three conciliators in the conciliation proceedings, each party may appoint one conciliator and the parties may agree on the name of third conciliator, who shall act as a presiding conciliator. The findings of the panel of three arbitrators shall be accepted as final and binding upon the parties. The Arbitration proceedings shall be in accordance with the "The Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996" and any other amendment released thereafter. The venue of arbitration shall be Mumbai and shall be governed as per the law of India and the jurisdiction of only Mumbai Court shall apply.
The result of the Arbitration process with regard to both findings and award of Arbitration cost shall be final and binding on both M/s FEMC-PRATIBHA JV (First Party) and M/s K.R. Anand (Second Party) and both parties waive their rights to any form of appeal insofar as such waiver can validly be made.
All documentation shall be prepared, the arbitration proceedings shall be held and the resulting award shall be given, in English language.
28.0 Dispute Resolution
As per Clause 4.5.4 of DMRC Contract, it is confirmed that any claim/dispute arising out of the above work shall be resolved in terms of agreement and shall not be raised before DMRC and also you shall not make any claim against DMRC before any forum/court.”
Signature Not Verified
Page 4 of 7
W.P.(C) 1680/2024
Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Da te:1 7.02.2024 16:05
raised by the contractor on the project. A copy of the said RTI application and reply has not been filed along with the writ petition. There is nothing on record to disclose that the work under the project has been completed to the satisfaction of the Respondent No.1 or to the satisfaction of Respondent No.3. There is nothing on record to show that the amount claimed by the Petitioner has been admitted by the Respondent No.1. The present writ petition is actually in the nature of a suit for recovery of money. The amount claimed by the Petitioner is not an undisputed amount which an instrumentality of State is bound to pay in a contract.
“3. Settled law — writ is not the remedy for enforcing contractual obligations. It is to be reiterated that writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper proceedings for adjudicating such disputes. Under the law, it was open to the respondent to approach the court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief for breach of contract. It is settled law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the existence of alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to issue writ, but ordinarily that would be a good ground in refusing to exercise the discretion under Article 226.”
Signature Not Verified
Page 5 of 7
W.P.(C) 1680/2024
Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Da te:1 7.02.2024 16:05
“6. The said order is under challenge in this appeal. On a plain reading of the impugned order it is manifest that the High Court while considering the writ petition filed by the owner of the vehicle for quashing of the notice of auction-sale and for other consequential reliefs has passed order drawing up a fresh contract between the parties and has issued certain further directions in the matter; the Corporation has been directed to advance a fresh loan to the writ petitioner to enable him to purchase a new truck; to enter into agreement for realization of the balance loan amount in accordance with law; to write off the remaining amount of Rs 16,500 and to order waiving of the interest till date etc. The order, to say the least, was beyond the scope of the writ petition which was being considered by the High Court and beyond the jurisdiction of the Court in a contractual matter. No doubt, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court has wide power to pass appropriate order and issue proper direction as necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. But that is not to say that the High Court can ignore the scope of the writ petition and nature of the dispute and enter the field pertaining to contractual obligations between the parties and issue such directions annulling the existing contract and introducing a fresh contract in its place.
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Page 6 of 7
W.P.(C) 1680/2024
Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Da te:1 7.02.2024 16:05
and payable by Respondent No.1. The Petitioner had specifically agreed not to raise any claim against the Respondent No.1/DMRC. After entering into the agreement, it is not open for the Petitioner to turn around and make a claim against the Respondent No.1/DMRC with which it has no privity of contract. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, along with pending application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
FEBRUARY 6, 2024 S. Zakir
Signature Not Verified
Page 7 of 7
W.P.(C) 1680/2024
Digitally Signed By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Da te:1 7.02.2024 16:05
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is maintainable for recovery of undisputed monetary claims arising from a contract where no privity of contract exists between the petitioner and the respondent state instrumen
Whether the existence of an arbitration clause and the principle of privity of contract bar the petitioner from invoking writ jurisdiction against the principal employer.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd.Relied on¶8
State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 216 · Who else cites this
Orissa State Financial Corpn. v. Narsingh Ch. NayakRelied on¶9
Orissa State Financial Corpn. v. Narsingh Ch. Nayak, (2003) 10 SCC 261 · Who else cites this
K R Anand
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Subramonium Prasad
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
