M/s Shreejikrupa Porjects, A Partnership Firm Duly Registered With The Registrar Of Firms And v. 1 - Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Thr
Case Details
1 ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.02.14 10:24:12 +0530 2025:CGHC:7575 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 27 of 2017 M/s Shreejikrupa Porjects, A Partnership Firm Duly Registered With The Registrar Of Firms And Societies Having Its Office At Krishna Complex-2, Office No.6, 2nd Floor, Rajnagar Chowk, Nana Mava Road, Rajkot-4 (Guj) And Represented Through Its Partner Mr. Karsan Bhai Varsani, Aged About 50 Years, S/o Shri Bachu Bhai Varsani, R/o 289, Sundar Nagar, Behind CSEB Office, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Through The Housing Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Executive Engineer, Division No.1 Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Ashok Mishra, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 12.02.2025 1. This revision under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 is directed against the award dated 27.10.2016, by which the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur (hereinafter referred as "Tribunal") has rejected the reference petition filed by the petitioner and "Nil" award has been passed. 2. The petitioner by way of reference petition filed under Section 7-A of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred as "Adhiniyam") claimed Rs. 74,40,593/- along-with security deposit, earnests money, cost of extra work interest therein and thereby claimed total Rs.1,94,21,693/-, which the respondents/non-applicants opposed by filing their return admitting the contract issuance of work order and further stated that the contract was rescinded vide order dated 28.06.2007 which was revived by the order dated 02.07.2007 and again rescinded by order dated 01.09.2007 and it has been also pleaded that the balance work has been done by M/s. Yug Construction. It has been further pleaded that the petitioner had not acted in accordance 3 with the terms of the agreement drawing and designs, which were provided to petitioner within reasonable time. Though the time for completion of work was extended but the petitioner was not interested in construction and finally the contract was rescinded by invoking clause 3 of the agreement and, as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any claim. 3. The Tribunal by its impugned award dated 27.10.2016 stated that 10% of the work has been completed by M/s. Yug Constructions, the sub-contractor of the petitioner and the power of attorney holder and, as such, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the reference petition against which this revision has been preferred. 4. Mr. Ashok Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal did not pass an order on merits of the claim and dismissed the reference petition on the ground that petitioner has no locus standi, as the entire work has been executed by the petitioner's power of attorney holder M/s. Yug Construction, which was never pleaded by the respondents. Even otherwise, the Tribunal was required to decide the claim of petitioner strictly on merits on the basis of material available on the record. As such, by recording a perverse finding, the reference petition 4 filed by the petitioner has been rejected, which is liable to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the reference petition of the petitioner in accordance with law on merits. 5. Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. It is true that the petitioner has made a claim of Rs.1,94,21,693/- but the Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the petitioner by recording a finding that he has no locus standi at paragraph 7 & 8 of the impugned award, which states as under :- "7. Petitioner itself has filed the terms of agreement. As per agreement article A work was awarded to petitioner as per Ex. D18 even after rescission of the contract only 10% of the work has been completed that too not by petitioner but by M/s. Yug Construction Ex.D18 is a specific document which shows that petitioner has failed to carry out the work as per the terms of agreement but 10% of the work has been completed by M/s. Yug Construction. It clearly 5 shows that only M/s. Yug Construction is responsible for any claim and liability. Document Ex.D18 is self explanatory and sufficient to presume that petitioner has failed to discharge its obligation under the agreement and work order and has parted the work to M/s. Yug Constructions without proper permission of the respondents. The act attributed to petitioner is serious violation of the terms of agreement which finally resulted into rescission of contract vide Ex. P9. Ex. P10 is not a document or revival of contract. As per reply of respondents in their written statement they have admitted the facts that remaining amount of security deposit has been returned to petitioner but this subsequent conduct of the respondents does not give any right to petitioner. In the light of letter Ex. D18 date 04.03.2008 written by petitioner to respondents authority petitioner is not having any locus standie to file present reference petition. After rescission of contract by invoking clause 3 of article A (agreement) any contractor is not entitled for security deposit or earnest money. 8. For the foregoing reason especially in the light of lack of locus standie and lack of right to claim we do not find any substance in the reference petition." 8. A careful perusal of the aforesaid paragraph would show that the Tribunal did not take pain to decide the reference petition claiming Rs.1,94,21,693/- on its own merit and 6 simply on the ground of locus standi, which the respondents have not taken, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, which is not the correct way of deciding the reference petition. M/s. Yug Construction was the sub- contractor and power of attorney holder of the petitioner and the work was admittedly awarded to the petitioner and even if, he has make some lapses, the claim of Rs.1,94,21,693/- ought to have been adjudicated on merits on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available on record, which has not been done by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 27.10.2016 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the reference petition of the petitioner afresh on merit in accordance with law after hearing the parties. 9. In the result, the civil revision is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No costs. Ashok Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge