Mohd Aslam vs. Chief Engineer Level I Irrigation Department Of Uttarakhand
Held
The High Court held that the matters in dispute, concerning payments for works done under work orders and agreements, are essentially contractual in nature. Any alleged violation or non-performance of these contractual obligations are subject to dispute resolution mechanisms provided within the contract itself. The Court emphasized that contractual matters are generally not entertained by a Writ Court. Furthermore, the existence of an arbitration clause within the contract provides an alternative and efficacious remedy for the petitioner. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the appeal, upholding the learned Single Judge's decision to dismiss the writ petition. The appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit.
Facts
The appellant, Mohd. Aslam, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents, including the Chief Engineer Level-1 of the Irrigation Department of Uttarakhand, to pay him Rs. 19,00,567/- with interest for works done under work orders/agreements. He also sought payment of Rs. 6,50,000/- with profit, GST, and interest for work done based on a comparative statement. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, citing the existence of an arbitration clause in the contract and holding that the Writ Court should not interfere in such matters. The appellant then filed a Special Appeal against this order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Writ Court is entitled to pass an order for payment of money, notwithstanding the existence of an arbitration clause in the contract. The appellant contended that the Writ Court is empowered to issue orders for payment of money, even in contractual matters. The respondents, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, did not present specific arguments beyond supporting the Single Judge's order. The Single Judge's reasoning, which formed the basis of the appeal, was that due to the presence of an arbitration clause, the Writ Court should not entertain the matter, as it involves contractual disputes and the petitioner is not without an alternative and efficacious remedy.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 220 of 2020
Mohd. Aslam
...Appellant Vs. Chief Engineer Level-1, Irrigation Department of Uttarakhand and Others
...Respondents
Shri Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner. Shri K.N. Joshi, learned deputy advocate general for the State of Uttarakhand.
12th October, 2020
Coram: Hon’ble Ravi Malimath, A.C.J.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. (Oral)
Aggrieved by the order passed by learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, the petitioner is in appeal. The plea of the petitioner was as follows:- i) Issue a writ, order in the nature the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondents to pay the amount of petitioner to the tune of Rs. 19,00,567/- along with 12% interest per annum from the date of its due till the date of actual realization, which is due in respect of the works done by petitioner in pursuance to the work orders/agreement issued in his favour (Annexure Nos.2 & 4 to this writ petition). ii) Issue a writ order or
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.