Skip to content


M/S. Nvr Steels and anr. Vs. Union of India and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata Appellate High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P.No.20433(W) of 2010
Judge
AppellantM/S. Nvr Steels and anr.
RespondentUnion of India and ors.
Appellant AdvocateMr. Sauvik Nandy, Adv
Respondent AdvocateMr. Utpal Bose; Mr. Prasun Mukherjee, Advs
Excerpt:
.....accused persons when they fled. one of the accused persons was already facing a murder case. the witness virendra kumar (pw-1) has also spoken about that. we must say that the trial court had acquitted the accused persons in a very casual manner. the high court has rightly held them guilty. the high court having noted these defects in the judgment of the trial court and the casual approach of the trial court was justified in reversing the acquittal. .....between the parties. mr nandy, counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that even if the remedy of arbitration was available, the petitioners, alleging arbitrary action on 2 the part of the respondents, are entitled to approach the high court under art.226. 4. in para.37 the petitioners have stated as follows: 37.your petitioners state and submit that there is no other alternative efficacious speed remedy available to your petitioners and the reliefs prayed for hereinafter, if granted, would afford complete relief to your petitioners. 5. nowhere in the petition the petitioners have stated that though the contract provided for remedy before the arbitrator, they are approaching the high court under art.226 for any specific reason. 6. in my opinion, when the contract between the.....
Judgment:
1. The petitioners in this art.226 petition dated September 20, 2010 are seeking the following reliefs:

(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing and/or commanding the respondent Nos. to set aside, rescind and/or cancel the purported and wrongful notice under Reference No. MSTC/ERO/DVC/DTPS/04-05/09-10/T-100 issued by the Deputy Manager, MSTC Ltd. dated 27th August, 2010;

(b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the respondents, their men, servants and agents, specially respondent nos. 2 to 7 to deliver unsupplied materials which have been fallen due from 3rd installment without any further delay.

2. By the letter dated August 27, 2010 (at p.108) MSTC Ltd. terminated the contract in exercise of power conferred by cl.8(d) of STC of the tender concerned, and questioning the action the petitioners have brought this petition.

3. Mr Bose, counsel for DVC, has submitted that the petitioners remedy, if any, was before the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration agreement between the parties. Mr Nandy, counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that even if the remedy of arbitration was available, the petitioners, alleging arbitrary action on 2 the part of the respondents, are entitled to approach the High Court under art.226.

4. In para.37 the petitioners have stated as follows:

37.Your petitioners state and submit that there is no other alternative efficacious speed remedy available to your petitioners and the reliefs prayed for hereinafter, if granted, would afford complete relief to your petitioners.

5. Nowhere in the petition the petitioners have stated that though the contract provided for remedy before the arbitrator, they are approaching the High Court under art.226 for any specific reason.

6. In my opinion, when the contract between the parties provided for remedy before the arbitrator, there is no reason to permit the petitioners to approach the High Court under art.226. All questions concerning the termination of the contract could be raised before the arbitral tribunal and the petitioners were also free to seek interim relief under provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

7. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //