LAWS(JHAR)-2011-4-65

MEINHARDT SINGAPORE PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On April 25, 2011
Meinhardt Singapore Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, Petitioner has prayed for payment of its admitted dues.

(2.) It is submitted by Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner that Petitioner was awarded work pursuant to a tender in two parts. The first part was related to drawing and designing and the second part was with regard to construction of Sewerage and Drainage System in Ranchi. The first part was completed and the Ranchi Municipal Corporation ('RMC' for short) gave a satisfactory work completion certificate and returned the performance bank guarantee to the Petitioner, and thereafter RMC has been writing to the State Government for payment of the bills, but the same are withheld from 17.1.2008 and 31.5.2008 when the final bills were raised. He further submitted that after about two years of completion of work by the Petitioner, a P.I.L. being W.P.(P.I.L.) No. 735 of 2010 was filed by some unknown person, set up by the unsuccessful bidders/and the persons who wanted to harass the Petitioner, and on the basis of an innocuous order passed on 13.9.2010, a vigilance inquiry got started only to harass the Petitioner, and on the ground of pendency of such inquiry the payment has been withheld. He lastly submitted that the Respondents be directed to pay the dues with compensatory interest.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Advocate General appearing for Respondent No. 1 - State submitted that in view of the arbitration clause contained in Clause 15 of the agreement, this writ petition is not maintainable. He further submitted that Petitioner should make a representation and the admitted dues, if any will be paid to him and for the balance claim, if any the Petitioner can invoke Clause 15 of the agreement. He further submitted that in view of Section 5 of the Arbitration Act, this Court may not exercise writ jurisdiction. He further submitted that in view of Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act Petitioner can claim compensation.