Back
2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 50192
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
RELIANCE SECURITY AGENCY – Appellant
Versus
THE ASSISTANT GENERAL ANAGER9ADMINISTRATIONBHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITEDOFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL GE – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 26728/2013
Disputes over contractual matters, including security deposits, should be adjudicated per the contract's terms, and arbitration clauses must be respected.
Headnote:
Forfeiture - Security Deposit - Article 226 - The court held that disputes relating to a security deposit must be resolved according to the terms of the contract, emphasizing the importance of arbitration clauses and the limits of judicial intervention under Article 226.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the forfeiture of a security deposit, claiming no adjudication of the dispute occurred regarding non-remittance of E.S.I and E.P.F amounts.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the respondents' claim of bona fide disputes over the security deposit, affirming that unresolved contractual disputes should be handled per the contract's terms, including any arbitration clauses.
Issues: Whether the forfeiture of the security deposit without adjudication of the dispute was justifiable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that disputes must be settled in accordance with the contract terms and arbitration provisions if included, limiting judicial oversight under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P3 in so far as forfeiture of security deposit is made by the respondent without adjudication of the dispute.
2. Counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 2 inter alia stating that the amount claimed by the petitioner was not given on account of the fact that the petitioner had not remitted the E.S.I and E.P.F amounts as stipulated and therefore the security deposit made by the petitioner is retained.
3. In so far as the disputes raised by the respondents are bona fide, I do not think that this Court will be justified in directing release of the security deposit amount. The dispute had arisen between the parties with reference to the contract and since the terms of the contract has to govern the matter, the dispute can be settled only in terms with the W.P.C.No.26728/2013 2 provisions of the contract. If there is an arbitration clause, it is always open for the parties of the contract to invoke arbitration and settle the disputes.
In that circumstances, I do not think that this Court should interfere in the matter by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
(
