Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
M/s SEW Kranthi JV – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 8906 of 2021
Decided On : 24-03-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(1) (g), 21 and Article 300A - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - 11(5) and (6) - Contract - Arbitration clause - Arbitral dispute - Petitioner under contract vide agreement No. AB and further action under impugned notice to recover excess amount paid to the petitioner amounting to Rs. 9.28.56.502/- and cost of variation in CC quantities amounting to Rs. 10.88.79.495/-. Totally amounting to Rs. 20.55.49.060/- and consequential tender notice No. and confirmation in favour of 7th respondent as arbitrary, illegal - Violative of Articles 14 - Article 21. Article 19(1) (g) and Article 300A of Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside same by directing the official respondents to release pending payment of Rs. 15.87.86.155/- to the petitioner - Whether jurisdiction should be exercised in a contractual dispute, the Court must, undoubtedly eschew, disputed questions of fact which would depend upon an evidentiary determination requiring a trial - Whether the action of the State or its instrumentalities is arbitrary or unfair and in consequence, in violation of Article 14.
Findings of the Court:
All above referred facts and circumstances and evident intent and objectives of parties to choose a specific form of dispute resolution to manage conflicts between them and interim orders of this Court in W.P. which observed fact that Learned Addl. Advocate General, on instructions submitted to Court that since there is an Arbitration Clause and it is arbitral dispute - Petitioner has to invoke same, without going into merits of claim and counter claim of parties on all issues involved in the present case and without even expressing any opinion on same and further taking into consideration - Writ petition is disposed of directing respondents to discuss with Petitioner who is counterparty to agreement entered into by and between petitioner and Respondents duly applying Clause 3 Sub-Clause 2 of G.O.Ms. No. 6.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of.
ORDER :
1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri A. Venkatesh appearing for the petitioner and the Special Government Pleader Sri. A. Snajeev Kumar appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
2. The Main Prayer sought for by the Petitioner:
PERUSED THE RECORD
3. Interim Orders of this court in connected W.P. No. 24761 of 2021 dated 04.10.2021 read as under:
List on 21.10.2021 along with W.P. Nos. 8906 and 21122 of 2021.
In the impugned order dated 30.08.2021, the 3rd respondent has specifically mentioned that the petitioner is entitled for payment of Rs. 15,87,86,155/- and that the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 28,07,60,001/- to the Department.
Sri B. Chandrasen Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 3 respondent is going to take steps pursuant to the impugned order dated 30.08.2021. He expresses his apprehension that the respondents may withhold an amount of Rs. 25 crores which is due to the petitioner by the 3 respondent which is pending bill and EMD of Rs. 8 crores.
Learned Addl. Advocate General, on instructions, would submit that since there is an arbitration clause and it is an arbitral dispute, the petitioner has to invoke the same. Instead of doing so, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition which is not maintainable.
In view of the same, matter requires examination.
Therefore, the 3rd respondent is directed not to take further steps pursuant to notice dated 30.08.2021.”
4. G.O.Ms. No. 6 dated 17.03.2022 issued by the Government of Telangana, Law (E) Department, reads as under:
2. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) second read above has been entered between the Government of Telangana and the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre Trust (IAMC Trust) on 27.10.2021.
3. According to Clause-5 (IACH's Case Management Services) of the Memorandum of Understanding, Government hereby direct all the Ministries, Departments, Public Sector Companies, and other entities controlled or managed by the Government of Telangana:
(i) to designate IAMCH as the arbitral/media
Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also a Court of Equity It will have to be mindful of interests of justice and ensure that in rigidly applying technical....
The court emphasized the importance of honoring contractual agreements and the need for parties to adhere to the terms of the contract. It also highlighted the significance of approaching the compete....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dispute fell within the ambit of the arbitration clause in the contract and that the public law remedy was not required as an effective pr....
The court affirmed that contractual obligations must be honored when supported by competent authority approvals and committee recommendations, reinforcing the binding nature of such decisions.
Point of Law : Parliament in exercise of powers as conferred therein enacted an Act by the name in the nomenclature of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in order to consolidate and amend the law....
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
