Dismissed

Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro Development Corp.

Uttarakhand HC18 Dec 2008WPMS/2557/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-performance of work and seeking release of bank guarantee under an agreement containing an arbitration clause. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the existence of an arbitration clause precludes judicial intervention under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner held to take the matter to arbitration; writ jurisdiction declined.

Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs Tehri Hydro Development Corp. — Arbitration | Uttarakhand HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Misc. Writ Petition No. 2557 of 2007

¶2

Jaiprakash Associates Limited, A Company duly incorporated Under the Companies Act, 1856, Having its registered office at ‘G’ Block, Surajpur, Kasna Road, Greater NOIDA, U.P. through its Director Shri Rakesh Sharma.

¶3

......................Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Limited, A Company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1856, having its registered Office at Bhagirath Bhawan, Bhagirathi Puram Tehri Service through its General Manager (Project).

¶6

..................Respondent

¶7

Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.

¶8

Heard Sri V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶9

(2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to take the final measurements of the work executed by the petitioner pertaining to the

¶10

construction of Tehri Dam and associated works under the agreement no. THDC/ND/CD-145/AG, dated 24^th January 1997. A further mandamus has been sought directing the respondent to release the Bank Guarantee of Rs.25,50,00,000/-, which has been deposited by the petitioner with the respondent as security amount.

¶11

(3) Perusal of the agreement between the parties, a copy of which is annexed as annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of petitioner, shows that there is arbitration clause in the agreement. Para (ii) of clause 60.0, of the Agreement which contains arbitration clause reads as under: -

¶12

“(ii) The disputes arising between Contractor and THDC shall be resolved by ‘Arbitration ’ in accordance with the provision of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory amendment thereof. The Board of Arbitrators shall be constituted by three Arbitrators, one to be nominated by the Contractor, the second by THDC and the third by the Secretary (Power), Ministry of Energy, Govt. of India.

¶13

(iii) ...........................................................”

¶14

(4) In view of arbitration clause between the parties, which forms part of the agreement between them, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the matter in dispute is covered by

¶15

arbitration clause, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take the matter to the Arbitration.

¶16

(Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 18.12.2008 NS

Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro Development Corp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. v. Tehri Hydro Development Corp.

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

Umed Singh Rawat Indu Samita Vs State and Others

Saurav Kumar Vs State and Others

Akshay Jain Vs State and Others

Dinesh Chandra Belwal and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Bhagwanpur Industries Association Vs Union of India and Others

M/S Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs State and Ors.