Back
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Braithwaite & Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by its Chairman & CEO, Railway Board – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Dhiraj Singh Thakur, C.J.
The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order impugned, dated 14.02.2024, passed in W.P. No.1300 of 2024, whereby the petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of termination of the Contract awarded to the petitioner, was dismissed on the ground that disputed questions of fact were involved not warranting the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and that there was an alternate remedy of arbitration as per the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties.
2. Briefly stated, the material facts in the background of which the present controversy has arisen are as under:
The appellant M/s Braithwaite & Co. Ltd is a Government of India undertaking. M/s Cognition Projects Pvt. Ltd is a company registered under the Companies Act. Both these companies formed a consortium called M/s. Braithwaite & Co. Ltd., & M/s. Cognition Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Consortium) in which M/s. Braithwaite & Co. Ltd is the lead member of the said consortium.
The consortium responded to a notice, dated 14.06.2022, inviting proposals under two bid system from interested eligible bidd
The court reinforced that the existence of an arbitration clause limits the scope for judicial intervention in contractual disputes involving the state.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of abiding by the dispute resolution mechanism provided in the Agreement for resolving disputes arising from the contract. The Court....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters involving public authorities and the importance of resolving disputed questions of fact through alternate remedies,....
Termination of Contract - Execution/completion of project - Learned Single Judge has rightly come to conclusion that there is no arbitrariness on part of respondents in terminating contract as they h....
Contracts of service with the State can be examined for unconscionable terms, and judicial review under Article 226 is not barred by arbitration clauses.
Public authorities must act fairly and cannot arbitrarily terminate contracts without justification, reinforcing the legitimacy of expectations within public-private partnerships.
Point of law: Stated simply, 'unjust enrichment' means retention of a benefit by a person that is unjust or inequitable. 'Unjust enrichment' occurs when a person retains money or benefits which in ju....
The State must act fairly and cannot terminate contracts arbitrarily without providing reasons, even in contractual matters.
Writ petitions in contractual disputes are generally not maintainable if they involve disputed questions of fact.
Section 11 of the Arbitration Act before this Court for appointment of arbitrator. Prima facie we are not convinced with the case put up by the Corporation that the writ-applicant is not entitled to ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
