Partly allowed

M/S Snnap Design Tech LLP. v. Union of India

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2024WP/1017/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an order directing a countersupplier to withhold payments from multiple respondents based on a dispute at a different site. The Court directed all parties to quantify their respective claims within three weeks to determine excess dues payable immediately.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Impugned order quashed; Respondents directed to quantify claims within 3 weeks and pay excess amounts immediately.

M/S Snnap Design Tech LLP. Vs Union of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:18749 WP No. 1017 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. SNNAP DESIGN TECH LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.6, 2^ND FLOOR, 9^TH CROSS SARASWATHIPURAM, NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU 560096 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER AND AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. KARTHIK N. S. (A PARTNERSHIP FIRM INCORPORATED UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008) …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI MAHESH A. S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

UNION OF INDIA CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HYDERABAD II, 1^ST FLOOR KENDRIYA SADAN, SULTAN BAZAR HYDERABAD-500 095 REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE-I ‘A’ WING, III FLOOR, KENDRIYA SADAN KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034 REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MYSURU CENTRAL DIVISION NIRMAN BHAVAN, SIDDARTHANAGAR

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:18749 WP No. 1017 of 2024

¶17

MYSURU-570 011. REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE-III ‘C’ WING, III FLOOR, KENDRIYA SADAN KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034 REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

¶19

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E) BANGALORE-I ‘C’ WING, I FLOOR, KENDRIYA SADAN KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034 REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI VINAY VENUGOPAL, C.G.C.)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.25(262)/2023/EE/HYD-II/PB/1527 DATED 07/12/2023 (ANNEXURE-C) ISSUED BY THE R1 BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR WRIT.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order at Annexure – C passed by respondent No.1 and for other reliefs.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶27

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in

¶28

the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record,

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:18749 WP No. 1017 of 2024

¶31

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1 in relation to the site and material in respect of a project at Hyderabad as evidenced by the material on record as here under:

¶32

“Name of Work:- Construction of Ekalavya Model Residential School (EMRS) Building with Boys Hostel i/c Wardens residence, Girls Hostel i/c Wardens residence, kitchen & Dining staff Residence 26 Nos.(1 No Type IV for Principal residence; 15 Nos Type-III for Teaching staff residency; 10 Nos Type-II for Non teaching staff residence) & 1 No Type-III for Guest House including Internal water supply & sanitary installations. Electrical installations, Drainage, Development of site and bulk services for EMRS at Dummungudem, Bhadradri Kopthagudem District, Telangana State. SH:Construction of EMRS School Building, 0.5 No’s Girls Hostel including warden residence, 0.5 No’s Boys Hostel including warden residence and Kitchen & Dining, Compound wall, Security Room, Internal CC roads, internal water supply, sanitary installation, drainage and Providing Internal Electrical Installations, Street Lighting, Substation Equipment & Fire Fighting System-Reg.”

¶33

It is submitted that though there is no nexus or connection between the disputes in relation to the aforesaid project between the petitioner and respondent No.1 at Hyderabad, the respondent No.1 issued the impugned communication to the

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:18749 WP No. 1017 of 2024

¶35

respondent Nos.2 to 5 purporting to invoke Clause 29A of the General Conditions of the Contract 2020 for the purpose of calling upon respondent No.2 to 5 to withhold and not make payments in relation to other works which are not connected to the aforesaid project and as such the impugned communication deserves to be quashed.

¶36

It is also submitted that the petition in COP.No.38/2024 filed by the petitioner against the respondent No.1 – Executive Engineer before the District Court, Hyderabad would be unconditionally withdrawn by the petitioner.

¶37

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections would invite my attention to Clause 29A of the General conditions of the contract in order to point out for that in the event there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and in relation to the subject contract at Hyderabad, the respondents would be fully justified in withholding the payments due to the petitioner in respect of other contracts and as such there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:18749 WP No. 1017 of 2024

¶40

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that though respondent No.1 claims that the petitioner is due to certain sums of money to the respondent No.1 in relation to the project at Hyderabad the actual sum allegedly payable by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 in relation to the project at Hyderabad has not been quantified by the respondent No.1 till today. In this context, it is relevant to state that except quantifying the quantum of Steel which is 142.22 metric tonnes (MT), the actual quantum of money has not been quantified by the respondent No.1 even till today. On the other hand, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that the respondents are due in the excess of Rs.6 Crores payable to the petitioner. However, this is seriously disputed by the respondents. It is also relevant to state that the exact and actual sum of money due by the respondents to the petitioner in relation to the contracts is also not forthcoming from the material on record. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions and in order to ascertain the exact quantum of the claim / counter claim by both sides against each other, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned communication at Annexure – C and issue certain directions to the respondents in this regard.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:18749 WP No. 1017 of 2024

¶43

In the result, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) Petition is hereby disposed of.

¶46

(ii) Impugned communication at Annexure – C dated 07.12.2023, is hereby quashed.

¶47

(iii) The respondent No.1 is directed to quantify the actual monetary value of the claim by him against the petitioner in relation to the subject project at Hyderabad in accordance with law within a period of 3 weeks from today.

¶48

(iv) In addition thereto, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 shall quantify the amounts due to the petitioner in respect of other contracts / projects other than the subject project at Hyderabad by issuing necessary communication in this regard to the petitioner within a period of 3 weeks from today.

¶49

(v) It is further directed that in the event, the amounts payable by the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to the petitioner in relation to the contracts other than the subject contract at Hyderabad are in excess of the claim of the respondent No.1 against the petitioner in respect of the Hyderabad project, the said excess amounts shall be

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:18749 WP No. 1017 of 2024

¶51

paid by the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to the petitioner forthwith without any delay.

¶52

(vi) In addition thereto, insofar as the amount claimed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner in respect of the Hyderabad project, which shall be communicated to the petitioner as stated supra, the respondent shall disburse / release the said amount also in favour of the petitioner subject to the petitioner furnishing the Bank Guarantee to the satisfaction of the respondents.

¶53

(vii) It is further directed that the amounts due to the petitioner under the contracts between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 5 other than the subject contract at Hyderabad, shall be paid after quantification of the same by the respondent Nos.2 to 5 within a period of 3 weeks from today.

¶54

Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.

¶55

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

M/S Snnap Design Tech LLP. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Snnap Design Tech LLP. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kasturi Vs Sri Shanthananda Vinayaka Swamy Devalaya and Sri

Yallavva Dange Vs State of Karnataka

Basavaraj Vs Ramappa

Mr a N Thammannegowda Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Smt Vijayalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Abhilasha Vs The Assistant Commissioner