Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
VIBHA KANKANWADI, HITEN S.VENEGAVKAR
MVV Satyanarayan – Appellant
Versus
General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a partnership firm, M/s. MVV Satyanarayan, registered at Hyderabad, acting through its authorized signatory (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'), against Respondent No.1 – the General Manager, Central Railway; Respondent No.2 – the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Central Railway; and Respondent No.3 – the Chief Engineer (Construction)/Central, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, Mumbai (hereinafter collectively referred to as 'the respondent railway authorities').
3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 13.11.2025 issued by Respondent No.3, whereby a decision was taken to part terminate the contract/agreement dated 17.08.2024, and further challenges the termination notice dated 02.12.2025, on the grounds that the said actions are arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction permitting it to complete the ba
Writ under Article 226 not maintainable for contractual termination disputes involving factual questions when arbitration clause exists, natural justice not violated, and no public law issue raised.
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 court established that termination of a contract must comply with natural justice principles, requiring adequate reasoning and opportunity for the affected party to respond.
Disputes arising from contract termination must be resolved through arbitration, not writ jurisdiction, especially when complicated questions of fact are present.
The court reinforced that the existence of an arbitration clause limits the scope for judicial intervention in contractual disputes involving the state.
Writ jurisdiction can address arbitrary state actions in contractual disputes, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to contractual terms, especially regarding extensions an....
The termination of a contract was deemed arbitrary due to non-consideration of the contractor's representations, violating the principles of natural justice.
Writ petitions in contractual disputes are generally not maintainable if they involve disputed questions of fact.
The court affirmed that principles of natural justice do not apply to non-statutory, purely contractual disputes where parties must adhere to the terms of their contract.
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
