news details |
|
|
| DB dismisses appeal challenging termination of contract to construct Army Hospital | | | EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, May 3: In a LPA filed by M/s Vijeta Projects and Infrastructure Ltd against the judgment of Writ Court whereby it had dismissed the petition of petitioner challenging the cancellation of contract of construction of a 650-bedded hospital at Northern Command.
A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir High Court comprising Chief Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Rajnesh Oswal while dismissing the appeal observed that as the contract in the case at hand was purely of a civil nature between a private individual and the State was not acting in any statutory capacity, the writ court rightly held that it was not having any public law character and was not in the domain of the public law. There is no dispute to the fact that the agreement vide Clause 70 provided for the resolution of disputes through arbitration.
During the course of hearing Sr. Adv Pinaki Misra, submitted that the said clause is illusory in nature as it limits the invocation of the same only after the contract work got completed through some other agency.
DB after hearing Sr. Adv Pinaki Misra for the appellant whereas ASGI Vishal Sharma for the Union of India observed that the agreement does provide for an alternative remedy of arbitration and the complete reading of the arbitration clause reveals that the said remedy can be invoked as soon as the respondents award a fresh contract for the purposes of completing the balance work and the appellant need not to wait till the completion of the contract for invoking the arbitration. The appellant having waited since March 2019 can certainly wait for some more time to get the matter adjudicated through arbitration as the respondents very fairly submitted that they would be finalizing the contract for the remaining work without wasting any time at the earliest which could not be done earlier due to this litigation. Moreover, arbitration happens to be a complete remedy for the redressal of all grievances of the parties which can be settled or adjudicated on the basis of evidence including that of summary proceedings.
DB further observed that the other point which arose for consideration before the writ court was whether the termination of the contract vide order dated 18.03.2019 is illegal or unjustified.
The court has categorically concluded that the contract had been terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and that there was no arbitrariness in such termination.
DB observed that thus, in the overall facts and circumstances, there is no error or illegality on the part of the Writ Court in refusing to entertain the writ petition both on the ground that it is not a case which warrants exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction and that there is no ex-facie illegality in the termination of contract leaving it to be adjudicated upon by the appropriate forum on the basis of evidence without prejudice to any observations or finding recorded by the High Court in the writ petition or in this Letters Patent Appeal. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
