2020 Supreme(Guj) 524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Vikram Nath, Ashutosh J. Shastri, JJ.
Jitf Water Infrastructure Limited – Appellant
Versus
Msme Commissionerate – Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1667 of 2019 In R/Special Civil Application No. 11169 of 2018 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2019
Decided On : 24-07-2020

Point of Law:
Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.

Headnote:

Letters Patent Appeal – Clause 15 – Companies Act, 1956 – Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Section 18(1) – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 76 – Contract and Specific Relief – Termination of Contract and Termination of conciliation – Seeking to quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.1 and pleased to grant stay of operation, execution and implementation of the impugned order – According to petitioner, JV delayed the execution and work which was duly intimated to it by the petitioner by dozens of communications right from 29.03.2017 till 22.12.2017 – When despite such notices the JV failed to rectify and to maintain the pace of work as required under work order, petitioner vide notice (sent by email) exercising the rights available under the contract, terminated the contract – Held, There is one more reason for dismissing the appeal i.e. Section 16 of the 1996 Act – Above provision gives ample power to the Arbitrator to decide all objections, including objections relating to its own jurisdiction. Law as by now is well settled and we need not further burden this order by referring to the case laws – Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited (supra) it has been clearly laid down that the appellant Bench may not interfere with the findings of learned Single Judge where the learned Single Judge has dealt with in detail the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and also recorded finding which cannot be said to be perverse, appellate Bench will refrain its hands from interfering with the judgment of learned Single Judge – Council would not have any option left but to refer it to the institution or center providing alternate dispute resolution services for carrying out matter further in accordance with provisions of 1996 Act – We also find that the learned Single Judge in above backdrop rightly dismissed writ petition – We may also record that the finding recorded by learned Single Judge can be held to be clearly a possible view – Nothing has been shown to even remotely indicate that finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is either perverse in any manner or that it cannot be sustained in law – Appeal dismissed.(Paras 32, 33 and 34)

Facts of the case:

Petitioner company entered into an agreement with M/s. Aquafil - Wintech JV [hereinafter referred to as `the JV’], a joint venture of M/s. Acquafil Polymers Company Private Limited (Respondent No.2) and M/s. Wintech Engineering Private Ltd. in respect of the work order on turnkey basis. The work related to procurement of Design, Supply, Installation and Commissioning of Intake Facilities, Transmission Mains, Water Treatment Plant and Reservoir for North Zone including 5 years of operation and Maintenance of JICA funded Guwahati Water Supply Project – Completion period of the contract for the work other than Operation and Maintenance service was 28 months from date of commencement and thereafter JV was obliged to render Operation and Maintenance service for 5 years – Total contract value was Rs.79.47 Crores for E.P.C. and Operation and Maintenance – According to petitioner, JV delayed the execution and work which was duly intimated to it by the petitioner by dozens of communications right from 29.03.2017 till 22.12.2017 – When despite such notices the JV failed to rectify and to maintain the pace of work as required under work order, petitioner vide notice (sent by email on 09.01.2018) exercising the rights available under the contract, terminated the contract.

Findings of the court:

There is one more reason for dismissing the appeal i.e. Section 16 of the 1996 Act – Above provision gives ample power to the Arbitrator to decide all objections, including objections relating to its own jurisdiction. Law as by now is well settled and we need not further burden this order by referring to the case laws – Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited (supra) it has been clearly laid down that the appellant Bench may not interfere with the findings of learned Single Judge where the learned Single Judge has dealt with in detail the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and also recorded finding which cannot be said to be perverse, appellate Bench will refrain its hands from interfering with the judgment of learned Single Judge – Council would not have any option left but to refer it to the institution or center providing alternate dispute resolution services for carrying out matter further in accordance with provisions of 1996 Act – We also find that the learned Single Judge in above backdrop rightly dismissed writ petition – We may also record that the finding recorded by learned Single Judge can be held to be clearly a possible view – Nothing has been shown to even remotely indicate that finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is either perverse in any manner or that it cannot be sustained in law.

Result: Appeal dismissed