Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
H.N. Pruthvinarayan S/o H.G. Narayana – Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director K.S.R.T.C. Bengaluru – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2940 of 2023
Decided On : 21-04-2023
The court referred to the concession agreement between the petitioner and the Karnataka State Road Transportation Corporation (KSRTC), which contained provisions for extension in case of force majeure events. The court also considered the e-tender notification issued by the Corporation. The court noted that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court and that the petitioner had not participated in the e-tender process. The court concluded that no relief could be granted at this stage and directed the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the Supreme Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lessee, challenged an e-tender notification issued by the respondent, the Karnataka State Road Transportation Corporation (KSRTC), seeking to terminate the concession agreement between them. The petitioner claimed that the contract had provisions for extension in case of force majeure events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The Corporation, however, issued the e-tender notification instead of granting an extension. The matter was pending before the Supreme Court. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court, but the court held that no relief could be granted as the issue was pending before the Supreme Court. The court also noted that the petitioner had not participated in the e-tender process. The court directed the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the terms of the concession agreement and the fact that the issue was pending before the Supreme Court. The court held that no relief could be granted at this stage as the entire issue was at large before the Supreme Court. The court also noted that the petitioner had not participated in the e-tender process and that the Supreme Court had permitted the Corporation to proceed with the tender without passing a final order. Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioner should seek appropriate relief from the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no relief could be granted at this stage as the issue was pending before the Supreme Court. The court also noted that the petitioner had not participated in the e-tender process and that the Supreme Court had permitted the Corporation to proceed with the tender without passing a final order. Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioner should seek appropriate relief from the Supreme Court.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to seek appropriate relief from the Supreme Court.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an e-tender notification dated 10.01.2023, issued by the second respondent the Divisional Controller of the Hassan Division at Hassan (‘hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for short).
2. Heard Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.D. Surana, learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent No. 1.
3. Facts in brief, germane are as follows:
4. It is contended that from 2016, the Corporation goes on threatening the petitioner that it would terminate the contract prematurely and declare the petitioner to be a defaulter on the ground that he has not been paying rents at regular intervals or rents for every quarter as per the contract. Dispute between the two arose with regard to payment of rent amounts and a final notice dated 15-11-2016 was issued to the petitioner alleging that if the dues were not paid, legal action would be taken against him. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 24.11.2016, seeking reference of the matter to the Arbitrator to sort out the issue with regard to arrears of rent as per covenants of the concession contract, since the contract recognized resolution of the dispute by way of arbitration. It appears that the Corporation refused to refer the matter to the Arbitrator on the ground that licence fee and other fees to the Corporation would not come within the purview of any dispute that could be arbitrated.
5. The petitioner later claims to have paid Rs. 78,76,404/- on 19-12-2016, under protest. Even then, the averment in the petition is that, the Corporation did not fulfill its assurances that it had made and went on taking money in the garb of licence fee without taking care of the fact that the buses should ply only from the new bus terminal and it is only then, the petitioner would be in a position to pay huge licence fee. Notices being issued from time to time by the Corporation threatening that if arrears would not be paid within 30 days of the notice, the contract would be terminated and further action would be taken against the petitioner.
6. All these grievances then reached this Court in Writ Petition No. 30258 of 2018. This Court grants an interim order of stay of the final notice. The petition comes to be disposed of on 17-09-2018, noticing the fact that the contract did recognize resolution of the dispute by way of arbitration and the fact that Civil Miscellaneous petition in C.M.P. No. 233 of 2
No relief can be granted by a lower court when the issue is pending before the Supreme Court. The petitioner should seek appropriate relief from the Supreme Court.
The court established that the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies as a force majeure event, warranting an extension of contractual obligations, and underscored the necessity of arbitration in resolving disp....
The court established that contractual provisions regarding extension and payment must be honored when satisfactory performance is demonstrated.
The court upheld the discretion of the Airport Authority in tender processes, emphasizing the need for restraint in judicial review of contractual matters, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The judgment established that an arbitrator must be impartial and that failure to adhere to legal provisions regarding arbitration can invalidate an award.
Point of Law : Arbitration - Concession Agreement – Maintainability of writ - Power under Article 227 of Constitution in a rare and exceptional circumstance - When an alternative and efficacious reme....
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
