Back
SUREPALLI NANDA
S. Tirupathaiah – Appellant
Versus
Singareni Collieries Company Limited – Respondent
ORDER:
Heard Sri K. Vasudev Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under :
(i) to declare the action of the respondents in forfeiting the Security Deposit/EMD amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and FSD amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the contract executed by the petitioner in terms of work order No. 7600003245, dated 18- 05- 2010 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the Proceeding No.CRP/CMC/CT/C14090449/9586, dated :05-02-2013 and consequential Proceeding No.CRP/CMC/C1409O0449, dated 13-01-2015 issued by the 3rd respondent,
(ii) consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioner’s Security Deposit/EMD amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and FSD amount of Rs.50,000/- pursuant to the work order No.7600003245, dt 18-05-2010 issued by the 2nd respondent
(iii) and pass such other order orders as the Hon’ble Court m ay deem fit and proper in the circum stances of the case”.
3. It is t
Writ petitions are not maintainable in contractual disputes when an alternate remedy exists in civil court, as per the terms of the contract.
Premature termination of a contract does not grant right to forfeit the security deposit without proof of actual loss, as it constitutes a penalty under the contract law.
Point of law: Not only is the writ jurisdiction of this Court invoked in a purely contractual matter, having no colour of public law and the writ remedy is thus not maintainable.
Judicial consistency demands adherence to prior rulings, ensuring prompt resolution of claims related to security deposits and sand ghat allotments.
The court established that retention of a forfeited bank guarantee is unjustified when the basis for forfeiture is invalidated by subsequent findings, underlining the jurisdiction of courts in contra....
The court reaffirmed that contractual disputes with an arbitration clause are not maintainable under Article 226 unless exceptional circumstances arise, emphasizing lawful forfeiture of security for ....
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
