This appeal challenges an order quashing a writ petition wherein the High Court declined to interfere with a bank guarantee invocation due to an arbitration clause. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding no error existed in below order.
Writ appeal dismissed, impugned judgment upholding the writ court order.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WA NO. 1830 OF 2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 18278/2004 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 6.7.2012
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
P.SUBHASH CHANDRAN
GOVERNMENT A CLASS CONTRACTOR,
REGISTRATION NO.21/BSC,
S/O. PUNDARIKAKSHAN, SREENIVAS,
VENJARMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695607.
BY ADVS.
SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
1THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED
(GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING),
MINERAL SEPARATION UNIT, KOVIL THOTTAM,
CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 583,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 UNION BANK OF INDIA MAIN BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER.BY ADVS.
STANDING COUNSEL,(B/O)
SMT.LATHA ANAND
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. VISHNU ARIKKATTIL-R1
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.1830/2012
2
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2022
S. Manikumar, CJ.
Appellant is the writ petitioner. Before the writ court, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
“i) Call tor the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P4 and issue a Writ of certiorari quashing the same;
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent not to invoke the Bank guarantee until a final settlement, is arrived at as to the claim of the petitioner.”
The petitioner obtained Work Order dated 6.2.2001 from the 1st respondent for transporting mineral sand. Due to labour problem and objection from the general public and landowners, there was interruption of work at intervals and by the elapse of time labourers claimed escalation. The petitioner made representations to the 1st respondent to arrive at an amicable solution and for a reasonable escalation of charges and the
W.A.1830/2012
3
matter was pending consideration by the 1st respondent. Vide Exhibit P1 dated 8.6.2004, the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to make immediate arrangement to extend the Bank Guarantee for a period of 3 months, since the existing Bank Guarantee expires on 20.6.2004. Vide Ext.P2, the petitioner instructed the 2nd respondent on 15.6.2004 to extend the Bank Guarantee for a further period of 3 months. However, without any justification, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P4 so as to invoke the Bank Guarantee. The action of the 1st respondent is arbitrary, illegal and with malafides.
“I have heard the senior counsel for the petitioner and the respondent in detail. Essentially the writ petition seeks to agitate contractual matters. This Court under Article 226 cannot go into contractual matters and decide up on the entitlement of either parties. The learned Senior Counsel however, submits that the agreement between the parties provided for an arbitration clause. The agreement, however, has not been produced here. If the agreement so
W.A.1830/2012
4
provides for an arbitration and the petitioner has any remedy subsisting at this point of time, in accordance with law, the petitioner shall be entitled to seek the same. With the above observation, this writ petition stands closed. Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed.”
Giving due consideration to the grounds raised in appeal and material on record, we find that there is no error in the impugned judgment. Writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/S. Manikumar, Chief Justice
Sd/Shaji P. Chaly, Judge
Shaji P. Chaly,
sou.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court erred in declining relief on grounds of alternate arbitration remedy.
Whether the writ court correctly decided that contractual matters are outside Article 226 jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P. Subhash Chandran
The Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited
Union Bank of India Main Branch
S. Manikumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court