Petitioner challenging royalty deductions in construction contract filed writ petition seeking refund. Bench held dispute fell under arbitration clause in contract and order against, dismissing petition on merit as in earlier similar case.
Petition dismissed; relief of directing collection and deduction of royalty denied.
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.
1
W.P.No.50162/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JULY, 2018
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.50162/2017 (GM-MM-S)
BETWEEN :
M/S. DRN INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS NAYAK’S HOUSE, DOOR NO.110 3RD FLOOR, DOLLARS COLONY GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030. REP.BY ITS GPA HOLDER MR.ARUN KUMAR NADGOUDA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: R G KOLLE, ADV)
AND:
2
W.P.No.50162/2017
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI:VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS TO COLLECT AND DEDUCT ROYALTY PURSUANT TO AN EARLIER GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION DATED 23.06.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, TILL THE COMPETITION OF WORK CONTRACT IN TERMS OF TENDER REFERENCE DATED AND WORK ORDER DATED 20.05.2014 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-A & B RESPECTIVELY, IN RESPECT OF MINOR MINERALS LIKE MURRAM, GRAVEL, SAND, ORDINARY BUILDING STONES EXTRACTED FROM PRIVATE PATTA LANDS & GOVERNMENT LANDS AS PER RULE 36, SCHEDULE-II; WHICH IS BEING CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF RESPONDENT-5 SENIOR GEOLOGIST, IN TURN TO THE ACCOUNT OF STATED TREASURY/EXCHEQUER AND ETC.,
3
W.P.No.50162/2017
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the subject matter of this petition stands covered by the order dated 09.04.2018 as passed in W.P.No.50161/2017.
In the aforesaid order dated 09.04.2018, taking note of more or less similar nature arbitration clause in the contract in question, this Court has declined to exercise the writ jurisdiction while leaving it open to the petitioner therein in taking recourse to appropriate remedies, in accordance with law and while observing as under:
“Having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made, we are not persuaded to entertain this matter in the writ jurisdiction. This is essentially for the reason that in the contract in question, admittedly, this nature dispute is envisaged to be settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by reference to the Sole Arbitrator, who could be appointed by agreement between the parties and failing such agreement, by the Appointing Authority, as specified in the annexure to the agreement.
It remains rather indisputable that the matters involved in the decisions referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner arose out of the
4
W.P.No.50162/2017
respective arbitral awards and not by way of writ petitions. When the contract in question contains arbitration agreement and the dispute pertains to the particular deductions in the running account bills; and the claim is of the refund with interest, we are clearly of the view that all the relevant aspects need to be gone into in the appropriate forum and for that matter, by the Sole Arbitrator, as envisaged in the contract in question.
The petitioner’s representation dated 05.12.2014 (Annexure-C) had been rather vague and uncertain, where the petitioner only stated that the royalty amount was being deducted as per new notification in the interim payments and the request was made to ‘compensate suitably’. Neither any specific claim was made nor even a request was made to refer the matter to arbitration. That being the position, it is difficult to construe the said letter dated 05.12.2014 as being a specific demand for arbitration.
For what has been stated above, we are not persuaded to entertain the matter in the writ jurisdiction.
However, we would hasten to observe that the option of taking recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law always remains open for the petitioner and for that matter, it is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition will not be of any impediment in the petitioner taking recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law.
With the observations foregoing, this petition stands dismissed.”
5
W.P.No.50162/2017
The position aforesaid squarely applies to the present case also.
Therefore, this writ petition stands disposed of in the
same terms.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
*bgn/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable in a dispute involving deductions in running account bills under a contract containing an arbitration
Whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief of directing collection and deduction of royalty for extracted minerals.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.50161/2017Referred¶29
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S. DRN INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DINESH MAHESHWARI
KRISHNA S. DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
