Partly allowed

P.Chinnasamy v. The Assistant Garrison Engineer (1)

Madras HC6 Jan 2022WP/13522/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions seeking certiorari to quash orders on GST deductions were disposed of without expressing an opinion on merits. The Court held that the disputes are arbitrable per the contract and directed petitioners to approach the arbitrator. Existing interim stay was extended for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of; parties directed to work out remedy before Arbitrator; interim stay extended for 30 days from receipt of order.

P.Chinnasamy Vs The Assistant Garrison Engineer (1) — Arbitration | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.01.2022

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.NOS.13522 & 13023 OF 2021 AND W.M.P.NOS.14386 & 13831 OF 2021 [Video Conferencing]

¶6

W.P.NO.13522 OF 2021

¶7

P.Chinnasamy M/42 years, S/o.Palanisamy, 7/238, Aero Nagar, Kadampadi, Sulur, Coimbatore – 641 401. ... Petitioner .Vs.

¶8

The Assistant Garrison Engineer (I), Redfields Post, Coimbatore – 641 018. ... Respondent

¶9

PRAYER:-

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of order dated 05.04.2021 in Letter No:8364/30/E8 in CA No:GE/WEL/ CBE/24 of 2017-2018 passed by the Respondent herein and quash the same.

¶11

W.P.NO.13023 OF 2021

¶12

Shana Constructions, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mr.MAdhu Suthanan, 3/706, Srinivasa Nagar, 1^st Street, Near Bye Pass Road, Lakshmipuram Post, Kovilpatti – 628 502, Thoothukudi District. ... Petitioner

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

.Vs.

¶15

The Assistant Garrison Engineer (I), Redfields Post, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶16

PRAYER:-

¶17

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of order dated 05.04.2021 in letter no:8371/64/E8 in CA No:GE/WEL/ CBE/23 of 2017-2018 passed by the Respondent herein and quash the same.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ponraj In both W.P's For Respondent : Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar In both W.P's Senior Panel Counsel

¶19

COMMON ORDER

¶20

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in the respective Writ Petitions and the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent, these Writ Petitions are disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits, in the light of the fact that the dispute between the petitioner in the respective writ petitions and the respondent could be resolved by way of arbitration in terms of Clause 70 of the contract signed by the respective petitioner with the respondent.

¶21

The dispute appears to be on account of the amounts paid towards GST at the rate of 18%, though at the time when the amounts were paid, the rate of tax were reduced to 12% in terms of notification No.20/2017-Central Tax (Rate), dated 22.08.2017.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Clause 67(g) of the Contract, no recovery of amount could be made beyond a period of two years from the date of settlement of the payment.

¶23

Though elaborate arguments have been made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective petitioner and the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the respondent, considering the fact that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent are arbitrable in terms of Clause 70 of the Contract signed between the parties, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶25

directing the petitioner in the respective writ petitions to work out their remedy before the Arbitrator.

¶26

Considering the fact that already an order of interim

¶27

stay has been granted by this Court at the time of admission on 30.06.2021 and same has been in force till date, the interim protection shall remain in force for a period of 30 days after the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28

During the interregnum, the petitioner is directed to

¶29

approach the learned Arbitrator in terms of Clause 70 of the conditions of contract and file an appropriate application for interim protection under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶30

In fine, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above observations. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(CS IV)

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

pgp

¶36

¶37

The Assistant Garrison Engineer (I), Redfields Post, Coimbatore – 641 018.

¶38

+2ccs to Mr.N.Ponraj, Advocate, S.R.Nos.1187 & 1188 +2ccs to Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.1277 & 1288

¶39

W.P.NOS.13522 & 13023 OF 2021

¶40

RGN(CO) PBS/14/02/2022

¶41

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Chinnasamy v. The Assistant Garrison Engineer (1)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Chinnasamy v. The Assistant Garrison Engineer (1)

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

The executive Officer Vs The Superintendent (tech)

Mr.G.Ravichandran Vs The District Manager

M/s.Pagal Asso Vs Addl. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer GD-1

M/S.Ss Bright Steels Vs The Union of India

M/s.Ootacamund Club Vs The Principal Commissioner

M/s.Bharath Traders Vs The Commercial Tax officer