Sri Kashinath Bhattacharjee vs. The State Of Tripura And Ors.

Held

The Court did not enter into the merits of the dispute at this stage. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 15.05.2024 and 15.06.2024. Respondent No.4 is to pass a reasoned order on these representations within a reasonable time, preferably within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's prayer for the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation, which was still pending before respondent No.4. The specific issues regarding the sustainability of liquidated damages and the arbitrator's disqualification were not adjudicated upon.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Kashinath Bhattacharjee, was awarded a contract for OFC Patch Work under NIT No.DE(M)CNTx/AGT/77/II/2022-2023/03 dated 18.10.2022, with an agreement executed with respondent-BSNL on 24.08.2022. The stipulated completion period was 180 days. After completing the work and submitting the final bill, the Divisional Manager, BSNL, imposed liquidated damages at 10% of the estimated cost of the work, conveyed via a letter dated 13.05.2024. The petitioner submitted representations on 15.05.2024 for revocation of this letter and on 15.06.2024 for the refund of Rs.7,80,456/- deducted as liquidated damages. The petitioner also claimed reimbursement of GST paid, amounting to Rs.4,88,411.23.

Key Issues

1. Whether the deduction of liquidated damages at 10% of the estimated cost of work from the petitioner's gross bills is sustainable in law, considering the terms of the NIT and agreement, particularly regarding the exclusion of GST from the estimated cost. 2. Whether the General Manager, CNTx NER, Shillong, is statutorily disqualified from acting as an arbitrator in light of the amendments to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, specifically Section 12(1) read with Section 12(5) and the 6th and 7th Schedules. Petitioner's arguments: The deduction of 10% liquidated damages is unsustainable as the NIT and agreement excluded GST from the estimated cost. The petitioner also sought reimbursement of GST paid. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the General Manager, CNTx NER, Shillong, is disqualified from acting as an arbitrator due to amendments to the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner requested the Court to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of their pending representation. Respondents' arguments: The respondents stated that the matter was being taken up for the first time and instructions were awaited. They agreed to the Court disposing of the matter with a direction to Respondent No.4 to decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law.