Dismissed

M/S. Psvcpl-Bbipl-(Jv), v. the Salem City Municipal

Madras HC3 Jan 2023WP/19319/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras disposed of writ petitions challenging the cancellation of a sewerage contract as infructuous because the work was completed by a subsequent contractor. The Court directed the respondent not to encash the bank guarantee for one month to allow for arbitration initiation.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed as infructuous; directed not to encash bank guarantee for one month to facilitate arbitration.

M/S. Psvcpl-Bbipl-(Jv), Vs the Salem City… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.01.2023

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

WP.Nos.19319, 19320, 23167, 23168 , 23168 of 2013 & 4268 of 2014

¶6

W.P.No.19319 of 2013

¶7

M/s.PSVCPL-BBIPL-[JV], Represented by its Authorised Signatory, M.V.Badarinarayana Plot 15, Bungalow No.10, Street No.1A, CZECH Colony, near State Bank of Hyderabad, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 018. ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

The Salem City Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Salem.

¶10

The Commissioner, Salem City Municipal Corporation, Salem.

¶11

The Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034. ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under the Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in Roc.No.15/2009-10/SS1, Package-1 dated

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

15.05.2013 followed by ROC No.15/2009-10SS1 Package -1 dated 08.07.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to continue to execute the contract in Package 1 for providing Under Ground Sewerage Scheme [Collection] System by forbearing the respondent 1 and 2 from encashing the bank Guarantee for Rs.77,54,627/- with the third respondent herein and releasing all the funds to the petitioner which are pending.

¶15

Petitioner : Mr.A.Kandhan Duraisami for Muthumani Doraisamy Respondents : Ms.N.Devi Standing Counsel – R1 & R2 : No appearance – R3

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings of the second respondent in Roc.No.15/2009-10/SS1, Package-1 dated 15.05.2013 followed by ROC No.15/2009-10SS1 Package -1 dated 08.07.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to continue to execute the contract in Package 1 for providing Under Ground Sewerage Scheme [Collection] System by

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

forbearing the respondent 1 and 2 from encashing the bank Guarantee for Rs.77,54,627/- with the third respondent herein and releasing all the funds to the petitioner which are pending.

¶20

These Writ petitions have been filed mainly challenging the Order of cancellation of the contract and direction has also been sought to allot the work. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent brought to the

¶21

notice of this Court the Order passed in batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.29223 and 29224 of 2013 dated 20.08.2020, wherein this Court has passed the following Order :

¶22

“5. Pending the writ petitions there was a direction from this Court to the Corporation also to settle the dues to the petitioners for the work done. It is also represented now by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said order was complied with and subsequent to the filing of these writ petitions, the works itself were given to another contractor. Since the works were entrusted to the subsequent contractor, the question of reconsideration of the representation does not arise.

¶23

In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.”

¶24

It is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

petitioner that the work has been allotted to the subsequent contractor and work has been completed. Though the prayer sought in the Writ Petitions have become infructuous, since the petitioner has not received the amount for the work carried out by the petitioner, he may agitate the same in appropriate proceedings, since the contract also provides for arbitration.

¶27

Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. It

¶28

is well open to the petitioner to initiate arbitration proceedings as per the

contract. No costs.

03.01.2023

vrc

The Salem City Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Salem.

¶34

The Commissioner, Salem City Municipal Corporation, Salem.

¶35

The Senior Manager, UCO Bank, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034.

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.Nos.19319, 19320, 23167, 23168 of 2013 & W.P.No.4268 of 2014

¶38

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶39

These Writ Petitions have been listed today at the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners under the caption 'For being mentioned'.

¶40

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that certain facts have not been brought to the notice of this Court while disposing these Writ Petitions. According to him, the bank guarantee Ordered to be kept alive is still in force and the bank guarantee has been renewed till now. Hence, he seeks a direction to the respondent from taking any action to encash the bank guarantee for a period of one month till he moves before the arbitrator.

¶41

3, Hence, the following paragraph shall be included in the paragraph No.4 after 'No costs.'

¶42

“The respondent is directed not to encash the bank guarantee for a period of one month. Thereafter, it is well open to the petitioner to approach the Arbitral Tribunal or the authorities concerned for any interim protection.”

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶45

vrc

¶46

and the registry shall incorporate above and issue fresh Order copies to the parties concerned.

¶47

12.01.2023

¶48

W.P.Nos.19319, 19320, 23167, 23168 of 2013 & W.P.No.4268 of 2014

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

¶51

vrc

¶52

WP.Nos,19319, 19320, 23167, 23168 , 23168 of 2013 & 4268 of 2014

¶53

03.01.2023

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/S. Psvcpl-Bbipl-(Jv), v. the Salem City Municipal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Psvcpl-Bbipl-(Jv), v. the Salem City Municipal

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

M.Narashiman, Vs the Commissioner

Sri Kasiviswanathar Temple Vs Hindu Religious & Charitable

Mohamed Sadiq Basha Vs The District Collector

Tmt.a.Sudha Arul Vs The Inspector of Panchayat/

P.Kannan Vs The Commissioner

K.Sathyam, Vs The Commissioner