IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
CWJC No.12921 of 2015
(9.5.2024)
M/s Star Electricals ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Electricity Board & Ors. ... Respondents
Bihar Public Work Contract Dispute Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 – Sections 2(g) and 8 – Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 41 and 70 – Power of Tribunal to dissolve/adjudicate disputes of Sub-Contractors/Executors – Sub-Contractor who executes work on behalf of contractor can be termed as "Party" as per meaning under Section 2(g) of Tribunal Act, 2008 – Meaning of "Party" has a wider scope under the Act as compared to definition of 'Party" under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Petitioner (Sub-Contractor) comes under meaning of 'Party" and rejection of claim of petitioner by Tribunal is illegal and arbitrary – Dispute is not between Electricity Board and respondent – Entire dispute is for non-payment of dues for works executed by petitioner on behalf of respondent – Impugned order of Tribunal set aside and matter remanded back to Tribunal to adjudicate and settle dispute within period of four months – Writ petition allowed. (Paras 20, 22, 28, 29 and 30)
G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J. – The Writ petition is filed for quashing the order dated 11.08.2014 passed by Bihar Public Work Contract Dispute Arbitration Tribunal (in short referred to as ‘the Tribunal”) in Reference Case No. 62 of 2014 wherein the Tribunal has rejected the application of the petitioner holding that the petitioner is a non-party to the contract and was not competent to raise dispute under the provision of Bihar Public Work Contract Dispute Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008. Further, for a direction to the Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute between the respondents and the petitioners, as the petitioners have executed the contract work awarded to Respondent No. 6 by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 which is covered under the expression of Sub-Contractor/Executor within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Tribunal Act, 2008. Further, for declaration that a Sub-Contractor falls within the ambit of party as defined under clause 2(g) of the Tribunal Act, 2008, and the Tribunal is competent to consider and decide the grievances of the petitioner as the Sub-Contractor/Executor as against Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as well as Respondent No. 6. Further, for a declaration that on account of the work executed by the petitioner as a Sub-Contractor/Executor the relationship of the petitioner as against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 is well recognized by the Scheme of law relating to Principle, Agents and Sub-agents as incorporated under Chapter X of Indian Contract Act, 1872.
2. The brief facts culled out of the petition are that the 6th Respondent was awarded with the work of installation of electric meters by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 i.e. the Electric Board in the year 2014. Further, the 6th Respondent Company approached the petitioner i.e. the local contractor for installation of the electric meters and issued an appointment – cum Work order vide letter dated 22.01.2014. Further, the 6th Respondent again awarded with the work of installation of 1250 set of three phase electrical meters in Motihari, Bettiah and Raxaul Electric Supply Division vide letter dated 05.10.2009 and the said work of installation was again delegated to the petitioner by the 6th Respondent vide Annexure -2. The petitioner received payments against part of the work done in the course of execution of the contract awarded by Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to Respondent No. 6, but part of the consideration was not paid for the meters installed in Raxaul and Bettiah Electric Supply Divisions. The petitioner personally visited the office of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in connection with demand of payments against the work done by him. But, the Respondents ignored the grievances of the petitioner and was advised to approach Respondent No. 6. Aggrieved by the acts of the Respondents, the petitioner filed Reference Case No. 62 of 2014 before the Tribunal against the Respondents seeking direction to make payments which were due to him on account of the work done by him vide Annexure-3. The Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 11.08.2014 on the ground of maintainability as the petitioner is not a party to the contract and is not competent to raise dispute before the Tribunal (Annexure-4).
3. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition was filed.
4. Inspite of issuance of notice, Respondent No. 6 did not appear before the Court either in person or through the counsel for the best reason known to him.
5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The contents of the counter disclose that the Electricity Board, now North Bihar Power Distribution Company awarded the contract work to Respondent No. 6 i.e. M/s Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. for supply and installation of 10,000 electric meters initially and later additional work of installation of three phase electrical meters in Motihari, Bettiah and Raxaul was entrusted. The counter also reveal the facts that M/s Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. had executed the works through the
Commercial Taxation Officer, Udaipur vs. M/s Rajasthan Taxchem Ltd.
State of Bombay vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd.
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vs. M. Krishnaswami Mudaliar & Mudaliar
Section 16 lays down that even interest is payable on amount entitled to by a unit.
The court established that claims for payment under a subcontract must be pursued through appropriate civil channels, particularly when they involve disputed facts and contractual obligations.
Only a party to the arbitration agreement can challenge the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Point of Law : Arbitration - Respondent Corporation is a “public undertaking” as contemplated in Clause (i) of Section 2(1)(i) and the contract entered into between the parties was a “works contract”....
The significance of admitted liabilities, conflicting stands, and serious disputed questions of fact in contractual matters, and the discretion of the court in exercising jurisdiction.
The main contractor is liable to obtain a labor license for all workforces, including those of sub-contractors, under the Contract Labour Act if the total number exceeds 20 workers.
Point of Law : Exercise of judicial power under Section 11 (6A) of the Act is concerned, the Designated Judge should confine himself only to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreeme....
The main legal point established is that disputes can be arbitrable despite fraud allegations, and the court has the authority to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a const....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.