M/S.Eskaps India Pvt.Ltd. through Its Director Vs Bihar State Electricity Board

¶1

2026:JHHC:2159

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P(C) No. 364 of 2005

¶4

---------------

¶5

M/s Eskaps India Private Ltd., represented through its Director, Coal Inspection Service, PO-Dhansar, Dhanbad, resident of Dhansar, PostDhansar, District-Dhanbad ….......... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bihar State Electricity Board, having its office at Vidhut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶8

Jharkhand State Electricity Board having its office at Kusai Colony, Doranda, Ranchi

¶9

The Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity board, having its office at Kusai Colony, Doranda, Ranchi,

¶10

The Chief Engineer, Jharkhand State Electricity Board at Kusai Colony, Doranda, Ranchi.

¶11

The General Manager, Patratu Thermal Power Station, PO-Patratu Thermal, District-Hazaribagh.

¶12

Patratu Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., through its Managing Director, at Patratu, PO + PS-Patratu, District-Ramgarh. ...... Respondents

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶14

For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate Mr. S.K. Tiwari, Advocate For the Resp.-BSEB : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Mrs. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Resp.-JUVNL:Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Sr. Standing Counsel Mr. Rishi Ranjan Vats, Advocate For the Resp.-PVUNL: Mr. Parth Jalan, AC to ASGI

¶15

------------ Order No.37/Dated: 28^th January, 2026

¶16

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein direction to command upon the respondents to forthwith make payment to the tune of Rs.4,36,725/-along with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from April, 1999 till the date of actual payment on the backdrop of the fact that the said amount has arbitrarily withheld by the respondents despite the fact that the work, in question, has satisfactorily been completed.

¶17

2. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board, now, Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (in short-JUVNL) and Mr. Parth Jalan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Patratu Vidyut Utpadan

¶18

2026:JHHC:2159

¶19

Nigam Ltd. (in short-PVUNL) have jointly submitted by referring to Clause-8.0 of the Contract which contains the Arbitration Clause which is available in Article of Agreement, appended as Annexure-2, wherein it has been provided that in the event of any dispute or difference arising in connection with the present contract between the party and Thermal Plants, such disputes or differences shall be resolved amicably by mutual negotiation. If such resolution is not possible, then unresolved disputes or differences shall be referred to Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board whose decision will be final and binding as per Clause 26 of the Tender document.

¶20

3. It has been contended on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has already made a representation before the authority in this regard as per the document available as Annexure-5 dated 26.03.2003. Since the nature of dispute is commercial obligation and, as such, the petitioner may be given liberty to make a fresh application for appointment of Arbitrator in pursuance to the condition stipulated in Clause-8.0 of the Article of Agreement.

¶21

4. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application before the respondentJUVNL who is being represented by Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, the learned Senior Standing Counsel.

¶22

5. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the availability of Arbitration Clause as under Clause-8.0 as a part of the Article of Agreement entered in between the Bihar State Electricity Board as first party and M/s Eskaps (India) Private Limited (petitioner herein) as second party. It is not in dispute that the Bihar State Electricity Board, after bifurcation, is now the JUVNL.

¶23

6. Accordingly, the liberty is being granted to the writ petitioner to make appropriate application before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, JUVNL for the purpose of resolution of the dispute in terms of the arbitration clause as available in Clause-8.0.

¶24

2

¶25

2026:JHHC:2159

¶26

7. If such application will be filed, the necessary decision will be taken in accordance with law by the concerned authority, i.e., the Chairmancum-Managing Director, JUVNL within a period of six weeks for appointment of Arbitrator.

¶27

8. All the disputes, regarding apportionment of liability of any nature is to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator based upon the material available before it.

¶28

9. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶29

10 . Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.

¶30

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶31

Dated:28.01.2026 Sudhir NAFR

¶32

3

M/S.Eskaps India Pvt.Ltd. through Its Director v. Bihar State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Eskaps India Pvt.Ltd. through Its Director v. Bihar State Electricity Board

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

Santanu Kumar Chandra Vs the State of Jharkhand

B Sudhakara Rao Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Kunti Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Alok Ranjan Vs the Directorate of Enforcement

Anju Devi Vs Bipin Bihari

Bahujan Mazdoor Union through Its Joint General Secretary Ram Ratan Ram Vs Employers in Relation to the Management of Kustore Area of Ms Bharat Coking Coal Limited