M/s Jindal Vegetable Product Ltd vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

All these writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner i.e. M/s Jindal Vegetable Product Ltd. According to the petitioner, he has done some construction work for the respondent authorities, for which full payment has not been made. Now the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions before this Court with the prayer that a mandamus be issued to the respondents commanding them to release the outstanding payment of the present petitioners, which they are liable to receive.

Whereas the claim of the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 510 of 2019 is Rs. 25,88,278/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Eight only), the claim of the petitioner in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 511 of 2019 and Writ Petition (M/S) No.512 of 2019 is Rs. 2,87,350/- (Rupees Two Lakh Eighty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Fifty only) and Rs. 60,15,210/- (Rupees Sixty Lakh Fifteen Thousand Two Hundred Ten only), respectively.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Surya Constructions Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & others passed in Civil Appeal No. 2610 of 2019, where it has been held that the undisputed claims before the Government are liable to be given and a person should not be running from pillar to post in order to get his just compensation.

All the same, in the present case the petitioner has not been able to establish from the averments in the writ petition itself that the claim which he makes was ever admitted by the respondent authorities. Except for a bald statement which he has made in the writ petitions, there is nothing in the writ petitions which may give strength to this claim. The annexures which he has filed along with the writ petition do not disclose the so called "admission", at the part of the Government or the Government authorities.

Moreover, there is another difficulty before this Court which is the admitted position that the contract on the basis of which the work was executed by the petitioner has an arbitration clause, under which the petitioner can invoke arbitration in accordance with law.

The learned State Counsel on these set of facts that admittedly there is an arbitration clause would rely upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 945 of 2018 decided on 28.11.2018, where the Division Bench of this Court has refused to entertain such matters and it was further said that the parties would always be at liberty to approach the competent civil court or the parties can invoke the arbitration clause, as the case might be.

In the present case, admittedly there is an arbitration clause. Since there is an arbitration clause in the contract, no interference is liable to be made by this Court in a writ petition.

The writ petitions stand dismissed. However, the petitioner would always be at liberty to invoke the arbitration clause.