Point of Law: Contractual agreement - Whether existence of arbitral agreement between parties that High Court of Delhi alone will have jurisdiction to try dispute arising out of contract is enforceable in law - Unconscionable contractual agreement - Enforceability of - When arbitration is complete and parties are aggrieved, jurisdiction of Court begins. In our case, arbitration has neither started nor concluded - If two arguments of petitioner should survive that matter can be brought before a writ Court, and also, that there is an unconscionable agreement, nature of the issues involved requires leading of evidence, which explains hesitancy of this Court's indulgence in matter.

JUDGMENT :

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction of the like nature for enforcement of the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the laws framed thereunder.

2. The petitioner herein functions in the name and style of M/s T.L. Constructions came into contractual agreement with the respondents for construction works at the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Chare, District-Tuensang, Nagaland. The respondent No.3 acting as construction agency for and on behalf of respondent No.2 floated Tender Notice bearing NO.RITES/CP/TC/NVS/TUENSANG/PH-A/Pkg-II/2005/2R on 17-02-2005 for construction of Phase-(Pkg-II) Buildings for Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at Chare, District-Tuensang, Nagaland. The petitioner participated in the tender bid.

3. The petitioner was successful in the tender bid for construction of school building, kitchen and dining external development work, construction of UG tank, tube well, drainage system, water supply system, road work open surface drains, internal and external electrical works. The scope of work of the contract is mentioned in the Price Bid Document (Volume-II) of the tender document of the contract. The contract work was for a total price of Rs.4,36,01,897.26/-. Agreement was executed between respondent No.3 and the petitioner’s firm M/s T.L. Constructions on 22-08-2005. However, when the petitioner’s firm started the work as per the agreement, there was delay in the completion of the work due to several attending factors beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner’s firm was granted extension of time on several occasions. The factors mainly hampering the progress of the work was cited as increased insurgency activities in Tuensang District. In the year 2006, one staff of RITES Ltd was kidnapped from the project site. At another point of time, an insurgent group camped at the construction site forcing the workers to desert the site resulting in dislocation of the project. There were multiple demands of extortion which also interrupted the work. Added to this problems, were the road conditions which was not favourable for smooth transportation of materials resulting in the delay of the work. The respondent No.3 granted time to the petitioner’s firm for completion of work as many as eight times. Despite all these, the works could not be completed.

4. Besides the work of the petitioner, construction of Phase-A buildings for JNV at Tuensang District, apart from the works awarded to the petitioner’s firm, which included boys and girls hostels, residential quarters, etc. were awarded to other contractors and it is learnt that the construction of these buildings and quarters have also stopped by the contractors due to unworkable rates.

5. Respondent No.4 vide letter No.RITES/CO/CP/NVS-Tuensang Ph A/3592/Folder/09 dated 25-11-2010 forwarded the re-revised Preliminary Estimate to the respondent No.2 incorporating the cost/details required for completion of the construction of Phase-A works at JNV, Tuensang including that of additional works desired by the Principal, JNV-Tuensnag. Consequently, the respondent No.2 by letter No.F.2-55(135)2001-NVS (W)/243 dated 29-09-2011 approved the revised estimates. This approval also included the additional works which were required as per the site at the work/project awarded to the petitioner. The three additional works were awarded to the petitioner which included playfield, boundary wall fencing and retaining wall. These additional works were sanctioned vide letter dated 29-09-2011 at the cost of Rs. 36.02 lakhs, Rs. 42.46 lakhs and Rs. 96.22 lakhs, respectively. Copies of the letter dated 25-11.2010 and 29-09-2011 are reproduced herein below:-