Shri P.P.John v. Superintending Engineer
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court held that disputes arising between contractors and the Government under CPWD contracts are to be settled via arbitration under Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract. Consequently, the writ petitions challenging contract termination are closed, leaving the petitioners with the statutory remedy of invoking arbitration.
What did the court decide?
Writ petitions closed; liberty granted to seek remedy under Clause 25.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 22810 of 2016 (A)
PETITIONER(S):
SHRI. P.P.JOHN, CONTRACTOR, PANACKAL HOUSE, POWER HOUSE WARD, ALLEPPEY - 688 001.
BY ADVS.SRI.BIJISH B.TOM SMT.NEVIS CASSANDRA L CAXTON LORETTA
RESPONDENT(S):
1. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CPWD, TRIVANDRUM CENTRAL CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 522.
2. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, NEW DELHI 1, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
R2 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL ADV. SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN, CGC
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in disputes arising under a contract that mandates arbitration under Clause 25 and Clause 2.
Whether the finality of decision under Clause 2 is subject to the procedural mechanism for dispute resolution in Clause 25.
Whether the writ petitions should be closed as the remedy lies in arbitration.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
SHRI. P.P.JOHN
- respondent
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, CPWD
- respondent
UNION OF INDIA
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court