SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(UK) 661

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Ved Prakash - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1059 of 2021
Decided On : 07-06-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Davesh Bishnoi, Advocate, T.S. Phartiyal, Advocate

Disputed amounts in a contract should be resolved through arbitration as per the contract terms.

Headnote:

Contractor - Disputed Amount - Contract No. 26/EE/2016-17 - Clause 44 - Arbitration Clause

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a contractor, claimed an undisputed amount for work completed in 2016. The court found that the amount claimed was disputed and subject to arbitration as per the terms of the contract.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the disputed amount should be resolved through arbitration as per the terms of the contract.

Issues: Disputed amount, delay in approaching the court, interpretation of contract terms

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disputed amount should be resolved through arbitration as per the terms of the contract, and the delay in approaching the court was not justified.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was advised to approach an arbitrator as per the terms of the contract.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The petitioner admittedly is a contractor. Respondent No. 3, as back as in 2016, had floated a contract and had invited the tenders for awarding the work of the balance tile floor, ceiling work in the inspection house at Mahuwa Khera Ganj, block Kashipur District U.S. Nagar, in 4th Sub Division, Kashipur, Division Udham Singh Nagar. The total cost of the contract was estimated to be Rs. 26,96,000/-. The work contract being Contract No. 26/EE/2016-17 dated 27.06.2016 was executed and awarded in favour of the petitioner on 27.06.2016.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of the contract, after its commencement of work on 27.06.2016, the same was satisfactorily completed on 19.09.2016, and as per his case in the writ petition, he submits that a total amount of Rs. 30,38,608/- is due to be paid to him, which according to him is not a disputed amount and in that eventuality, the writ petition would be tenable for issuing an appropriate writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents for the payment of admitted amount.

3. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is an admitted amount, and hence a writ of mandamus could be issued, this Court is constrained to accept the tenacity of the said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the reason being that the work completion took place way back on 19.09.2016, even if at all there was no dispute with regard to the payment of the amount as the learned counsel for the petitioner contends in his argument, in that eventuality, he was expected to approach the Court within a reasonable time frame. There is an inordinate delay of more than four years. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was filing representations and that is why he could not approach the Court earlier.

4. This Court is of the view that an interse dispute between the contractor and the contracting party, is specifically governed by the terms of the contract. Merely by filing of the representations and waiting for its decision for last four years, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take the benefit of lapses on his part on this ground.

5. Besides this, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amount stands admitted is yet again based upon an interpretation given to the correspondence dated 26.11.2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), which is a communication made by the Chief Engineer to the Secretary (Irrigation), wherein in accordance with paras 9, 10, 11 and 12, which are extracted hereunder, in fact, it seems that it pertained to the work performed in the years 2012-13 to 2016-17, where there had been certain irregularities by the Executive Engineer, who has retired from the services, against whom an inquiry proceeding was pending consideration and the work, which was got performed was beyond the proper prior sanctioned amount. The extract reads as under:-

**9& voxruh; gS fd o"kZ 2012&13 ls 2016&17 rd flapkbZ [k.M] dk'khiqj esa fuekZ.k dk;ksZ esa vfu;feRrk gsrq rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk Jh jke ldy vk;Z ¼orZeku esa lsokfuo`Rr½ ds fo:} 'kklu LRkj ls tkWap izpfyr gSA Jh vk;Z] rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk dks 'kklu }kjk fn;s x;s pktZ'khV esa mDr 02 la[;k fujh{k.k Hkouksa esa iqujhf{kr ;kstuk dh Lohd`fr ds fcuk Lohd`r ykxr ls vf/kd /kujkf'k ds dk;Z fd;s tkus dk Hkh mYys[k gSA mDr tkWp esa 'kklu Lrj ls fu.kZ; fy;k tkuk gSA

10& bl izkdj mDr 02 la[;k fujh{k.k Hkouksa esa Lohd`r ykxr ls vf/kd /kujk'kh ds dk;Z djk;s tkus dkj.k lEcfU/kr Bsdsnkjksa esa chtdksa ds Hkqxrku yfEcr gSA Hkqxrku u gksus ds dkj.k lEcfU/kr Bsdsnkjksa }kjk ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] uSuhrky esa fjV ;kfpdk;sa ;ksftr dh tk jgh gSA fjV ;kfpdkvksa esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk lEcfU/kr Bsdsnkjksa ¼;kph½ ds izR;kosnu ij fu.kZ; ysus gsrq foHkkx dks funsZf'kr fd;k tk jgk gSA

11&vr% Lohd`r ykxr ls /kujkf'k ds dk;Z djk;s tkus ds dkj.k ,d vksj tgkW rRdkyhu vf/k'kklh vfHk;Urk ds fo:} tkWp dh dk;Zokgh 'kklu Lrj ij xfreku gS ogha nwljh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top