The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy, such as arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, generally precludes the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly when the dispute involves complex questions of fact.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T C.R.

Soumen Sen, C.J.

1. This writ appeal is filed at the instance of a contractor assigned with the work of construction of international and domestic cruise terminal and other allied facilities at Mormugao Port Authority through EPC contract, Tender No.T15-T-1946/2021-C.

2. The genesis of the dispute is the show cause notice dated 21.11.2025. In the show cause notice it was alleged by the Cochin Port Authority that the contract is liable to be terminated for wrongful delay or suspension of work or slow progress or inferior workmanship and in the event, no satisfactory reply is received within 10 days, the contract would stand terminated. The show cause notice was duly replied on 01.12.2025. One of the grounds was non availability of the valid CRZ approval and indemnity. The other contentions appears to be that arbitration proceedings are already underway concerning the major variations in scope and the consequential payments, which form the core of the contractual financial structure of the Cochin Port Authority as Employer and pending such arbitration proceeding, any threatened action to terminate the contract would be unfair, thereby bypassing the adjudicatory process. The Cochin Authority however proceeded with the matter and terminated the contract on 10.12.2025. The grounds for termination are as follows.

• Non compliance of the Supplementary Agreement executed on 13.08.2025 in order to enable you cash flow by releasing an amount of Rs.6 crores on your request and non progress and non completion of the work as per the timelines indicated

• In spite of show cause notice dated 21.11.2025, you have stopped all works at site on 30-11-2005 an intimated wide your letter No.RCC-ACC/CPT/T15/T-1945/1004 dated 01-12-2025.

• The reasons for the delay in Implementation of the project submitted vide your letter No.ROC-ACC/CPT/T15/T-1945/1065 dated 01-12-2025 are not satisfactory.

• You have not submitted an action plan to complete the project within the stipulated time requested vide CoPA's letter No.Dy. CE-II/T-1946/Goa ICT/2022-C/2188(w) dated 21.11.2025.

• The JV partner M/s. Asian Construction Company has not executed any work at site even though as per the JV agreement executed between M/s.RCC Infraventures Ltd. and M/s. Asian Construction Company the parties shall execute works jointly in the ratio of 51% and 49% and this is clear breach of Contract Agreement executed in between CoPA and the Contractors M/s.RCC-ACC (JV).

• The rectification in painting of steel structures, fabrication & erection of steel structures, flooring works etc. intimated to the contractors vide CoPA's letter No.Dy. CE-II/T-1946/Goa ICT/2022-C/2008(w) dated 23.09.2025 has not been carried out to the satisfaction of CoPA till date.

• Your aforesaid actions amount to breach of contract as per the terms and conditions of contract.

3. Instantly, during the pendency of the said proceeding, the petitioner/appellant invoked the Arbitration Clause before the Commercial Court, Ernakulam. But for reasons best known to the petitioner, the said proceeding was abruptly withdrawn. In the said proceeding initiated under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’ for short), one of the prayers was to maintain status quo as on the date of the said application. It