Indore, Madhya Pradesh v. 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Departmetnt, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.02.20 10:50:11 +0530 2025:CGHC:8637 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1653 of 2019 Campus Polyplast Private Limited Having Its Registered Office At Shiv Udyog Nagar, Nemaver Road, Indore Madhya Pradesh.- 452001 Through Its Authorized Representative Shatrughan Saahu, District : Indore, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Departmetnt, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Municipal Corporation Bhilai Through Its Commissioner, Chhattisgarh 3. State Urban Development Agency, Chhattisgarh, 4th Floor, D-Block, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For State For Respondent No. 2
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate along with Mr. Rajeev Kumar Pandey, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19. 02.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Petitioner most humbly prays before the Hon'ble Court that Respondents be directed to release 10% of payments arbitrarily withheld 2 by them in bills submitted in respect of work orders, by the Petitioner, which comes to INR 41,48,970 without interest. The Respondents be further directed to pay a interest at 18% p.a from the date of bills till payment is made 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost expenses of this petition.” 2. Mr. Priyank Rathi, counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/company is indulged in manufacturing, exporting and supplying splendid quality Dustbins, Blow Moulded Water Storage Tanks, Vastu Tanks, Milk Cans, etc. He would further submit that respondent No. 3/State Urban Development Agency floated e-tender on 01.04.2017 for the supply of Dustbins in the State of Chhattisgarh. He would also submit that the petitioner participated and was empanelled from 01.06.2017 for the supply of Dustbins to various Municipal Corporations. It is contended that the petitioner supplied Dustbins as per work orders issued by various Municipal Corporations. It is further contended that the Dustbins were duly physically inspected by a third party. It is also contended that the petitioner completed the work order and placed the final bills. It is stated that 90% of the invoice value was paid to the petitioner and for the rest 10% assurance was given. It is further stated that till date, the remaining 10% outstanding amount has not been paid. He would argue that vide e-mail dated 27.04.2019, the Commissioner denied payment of 10% balance amount to the petitioner. He would pray that a direction may be issued to the respondents to make payment of the remaining 10% amount i.e. Rs. 41,48,971/-. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that the Dustbins supplied by the 3 petitioner were of inferior quality; therefore, 10% balance amount has not been paid. They would further submit that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement entered into between the parties. They would also submit that the petitioner ought to have approached the arbitrator according to clause 5.22 of the agreement. Thus, this petition is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The petitioner and the Municipal Corporation/respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement. The petitioner was awarded work order of supply of Dustbins to various Municipal Corporations. The petitioner supplied the Dustbins, but later on, it was found that the Dustbins supplied by the petitioner were of inferior quality. The 90% amount of the work order was already paid to the petitioner, and in this petition, the petitioner has claimed only the remaining 10% of the amount. 6. It appears that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. According to respondent No. 2, the quality of the Dustbins was substandard; therefore, the payment of the remaining 10% amount was withheld. 7. Clause 5.22 of the Agreement reads as under:- “5.22 Arbitration 5.22.1 in the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under these conditions or any special conditions of contract, or in connection with this contract (except as to any matters the decision of which is specially provided for by these or the special conditions) the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of CEO, SUDA or his nominee. There will be no objection that the arbitrator is a Government Servant/ Employee of undertaking that he had to deal with the matters 4 to which the contract related or that in the course of his duties as a Government servant/Employee of Undertaking he had express views on all or any of the matters in dispute or difference. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to this contract. 5.22.2 In the event of the Arbitrator dying, neglecting or refusing to act or resigning or being unable to act for any reason, or his award being set aside by the court for any reason, shall be lawful for the Authority to appoint another arbitrator in place of the outgoing arbitrator in the manner aforesaid. 5.22.3 It is further a term of this contract that no person other than the person appointed by the Authority as aforesaid should act as arbitrator and that, if for any reason that is not possible, the matter is not to be referred to Arbitration at all. 5.22.4 The arbitrator may from time to time with the consent of all the parties to the contract enlarge the time for making the award. 5.22.5 Upon every and any such reference, the assessment of the costs incidental to the reference and award respectively shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator. 5.22.6 Subject as aforesaid, the Arbitration & Reconciliation Act, 1996 and the rules there under and any statutory modification thereof for the time being in force shall be deemed to apply to the Arbitration proceedings under this clause. 5.22.7 The venue of arbitration shall be the place from which formal Acceptance of Tender is issued or such other place as the Authority at his discretion may determine.” 8. Taking into consideration the fact that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 with regard to the quality of Dustbins supplied by the petitioner and there is an arbitration clause, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. However, the petitioner is permitted to exhaust the remedies accessible to him under the agreement. 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Consequently, this petition fails and is 5 hereby dismissed. d Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant