M/S R.K. Construction INDIA PVT. LTD. Thru. Its Director Neelam Singh vs. Managing Director U.P. State Bridge Corporation LTD. And Another

Held

The Court held that it could not enter into the merits of the controversy arising out of a contractual matter, especially when there was a dispute regarding the deposit of GST amounts on the portal. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's counsel pressing for reliefs (b), (c), and (d) even after the bid notice was cancelled. Considering the respondent's suggestion that the petitioner approach the Managing Director of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., the Court directed the petitioner to raise their grievances before the Managing Director. The Managing Director was to take a decision deemed fit and proper, keeping in mind the terms of the contract. The Court also noted that if the petitioner remained aggrieved, they could invoke the arbitration clause. The Court did not decide on the merits of the GST deposit dispute.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s R.K. Construction India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a bid notice dated March 18, 2023, and seeking other reliefs. The petitioner's counsel pressed for reliefs (b), (c), and (d). The respondent's counsel stated that the bid notice had been cancelled. The dispute involves a contractual matter between the petitioner and the U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., with a disagreement regarding the deposit of GST amounts on the GST portal. The Court noted that it could not enter the merits of a contractual controversy. The respondent's counsel suggested the petitioner approach the Managing Director of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. to raise their grievances.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can adjudicate on the merits of a dispute arising from a contract between the petitioner and the U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., particularly concerning the deposit of GST amounts on the GST portal? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought various reliefs, including those related to contractual matters and GST deposit discrepancies. The petitioner's counsel pressed for reliefs (b), (c), and (d) after the bid notice was cancelled. Respondent's contention: The respondent's counsel stated that the bid notice dated March 18, 2023, had been cancelled. They also indicated a difference in the deposit of GST amounts on the portal, a fact disputed by the petitioner. The respondent suggested the petitioner approach the Managing Director of U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. to resolve their grievances.