M/S Jainco Buildcon PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The High Court dismissed the review petition. The Court disagreed with the petitioner's contention that the amounts claimed were undisputed. It referred to resolution No. 54 dated 07.03.2024, which stated that the main work performed by the petitioner was not satisfactory. Consequently, the Court held that there was indeed a dispute between the parties. The Court reasoned that because a dispute existed, it was appropriate for the matter to be resolved under Clause 12 of the contract, as previously directed. Therefore, no grounds for reviewing the earlier order were found. The ratio decidendi is that if a contract contains a dispute resolution mechanism, disputes arising from the contract, even concerning admitted work or additional costs, should be resolved through that mechanism if the satisfaction of work is questioned by the other party. The operative direction was the dismissal of the review petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jainco Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., filed a review petition seeking to overturn a previous order dated 08.07.2024, which had dismissed their writ petition. The dismissal was based on the liberty granted to the petitioner to raise their dispute under Clause 12 of the Dispute Resolution System, as stipulated in their contract. The petitioner argued that the Writ Court failed to consider that they had claimed three specific reliefs in their original writ petition. Two of these reliefs pertained to undisputed amounts for completed work, totaling Rs. 1,09,00,933/- and Rs. 50,12,013/- (including additional costs due to GST). The petitioner contended that the writ petition should have been entertained for these undisputed amounts, while the remaining dispute could be addressed through the contractual clause.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Writ Court erred in dismissing the writ petition without examining all the reliefs sought by the petitioner, particularly those pertaining to undisputed amounts, as per the petitioner's contention? 2. Whether the amounts claimed by the petitioner for completed work and additional costs due to GST are indeed undisputed, as argued by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Writ Court failed to examine the three reliefs sought in the writ petition. They contended that two of the claimed amounts, Rs. 1,09,00,933/- for completed work and Rs. 50,12,013/- for additional costs due to GST, were undisputed. Therefore, the writ petition should have been entertained for these amounts, with the remaining dispute being resolved under the contractual Clause 12. They relied on the fact that the main work was completed satisfactorily. Revenue/State's Arguments: The State, through the Municipal Council (respondent No. 3), argued that the work performed by the petitioner was not satisfactory, as indicated by resolution No. 54 dated 07.03.2024. This finding established that there was a dispute between the parties, which was liable to be resolved under Clause 12 of the contract.