IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.40074/2017 (GM - RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. PRISM SURFACE COATINGS (P) LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA BOMMASANDRA BANGALORE – 562 158 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.G.PREETAM KUMAR) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI NARAYANA K, ADVOCATE) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDING NEW DELHI – 110 001 2. THE DY. CHIEF MATERIALS MANAGER FOR AND ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT OF INDIA CENTRAL ORGANISATION FOR MODERNIZATION OF WORKSHOPS RAILWAY OFFICERS COLONY TILAK BRIDGE NEW DELHI – 110 002 3. THE DY. CME/PRODUCTION FOR CHIEF WORKSHOPS MANAGER CARRIAGE & WAGON WORKS PERAMBUR, SOUTHERN RAILWAY CHENNAI – 600 023.
4. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK COX TOWN BRANCH NO.157, M.M.ROAD FRAZER TOWN BANGALORE – 560 005 (BY ITS MANAGER) ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3; SRI.DEEPAK, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE MEMO OF REJECTION ISSUED IN FORM NO.S-764 BY THE R-
3 [ANNEXURE – B] AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, ULTRA-VIRES AND UNSUSTAINABLE AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court assailing the memo of rejection as at Annexure-“B” to the writ petition. The petitioner, in that light, is seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondents 2 and 3 to revoke the memo of rejection and permit the petitioner to complete the balance work for commissioning of machine at CW/PER in accordance with the contract as at Annexure-“A” to the petition.
2. The fact that the petitioner is entrusted with the work to be performed as described in Annexure-“A” is not in dispute. The said work which had been entrusted to the petitioner has been terminated by a memo of rejection. The petitioner is before this Court contending that the memo of rejection is not justified, since according to the petitioner the petitioner has already completed 95% of the work entrusted. It is in this regard the petitioner contends that respondent No.2 be directed to withdraw the memo of rejection and permit the petitioner to complete the remaining portion of the work.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed their preliminary objections to the instant petition raising an issue with regard to the maintainability of this petition. In the objections, it is contended that the petitioner is before this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution relating to contractual matter. In that regard, it is contended that the right as provided to respondent No.2 has been exercised as per the contract. It is also the contention therein that in the event of there being any dispute relating to the work pertaining to the contract, the same provides for resolution of dispute through arbitration. In that regard, Clause No.3201 as contained in the General conditions of the contract is referred and in that light it is contended that the instant writ petition is not maintainable.
4. Having taken note of the rival contentions, the very averments as put forth in the petition discloses that the parties have entered into a contract as at Annexure-“A” to the petition. In that circumstance, when the contract has been terminated by respondent No.2 and the petitioner seeks to contend that the petitioner has not violated any terms of the contract and the petitioner is entitled to complete the work, these are disputes which are arising relating to the contractual matter and if that be the position, the disputed questions as arisen between the parties is to be resolved through the mode as has been agreed to between the parties under the contract. In that light, when there can be no dispute to the fact that the contract contains arbitration clause as referred to in the objection statement filed by the respondent and the same is evident from the document at Annexure-“A” to the petition, the parties are required to be relegated to the alternative remedy as has been agreed to amongst themselves.
5. In that view, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the arbitration clause as contained in the contract between the parties and if the petitioner invokes the same the second respondent shall act in accordance with the terms of contract by appointing appropriate arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties.
6. Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.