Judgment · High Court

1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 07/12/2011C O R A MTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIANWrit Petition (MD) Nos.13859 AND 13860 of 2011K.Ramesh ...Petitioner in both W.Ps.Vs1.The Chairman, Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdar Jung Airport, New Delhi2.The Regional Executive Director, Southern Region, Airports Authority of India, Operational Offices Building, Chennai Airport, Chennai.3.The General Manager (Engineering) Airports Authority of India, Operational Offices Building, Chennai Airport, Chennai.4.The Airport Director Airports Authority of India, Madurai Airport, Madurai. 5. The Assistant General Manager Engineering (Civil) Airports Authority of India, Madurai-22 ...Respondents in both WPsPrayer in W.P.No.13859/2011:Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus tocall for the records pertaining to the impugned order in AAI/MDU/AGME(C)/W 27/2009/5580 dated 13.06.2011 on the file of the respondent No.5and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents tomake the pending payment as per the communication dated 18.02.2011 by therespondent No.5 and allow the petitioner to complete the contract worksin the revised rate within a reasonable time stipulated by this Court. Prayer in W.P.No.13860/2011:Petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for therecords pertaining to the impugned tender notification in Daily Thanthidated 26.11.2011 by the respondent No.5 and quash the same as illegal. For petitioner ... Mr.S.Rajasekar for Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents ... No appearance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2O R D E RThe petitioner has come up with the above writ petitions, challenging (1) the termination of a contract for the construction of aperipheral road and (2) a tender notification issued for the award of the samecontract, invoking the risk and cost clause. 2. Heard Mr.S.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that under the generalconditions of the contract between the petitioner and the respondents, any dispute between the parties has to be referred to arbitration. 4. Article 4.1 of the agreement entered into by the petitionerwith the respondent reads as follows: “ARTICLE 4.1 SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES:It is specifically agreed by and between the partiesthat all the difference or disputes arising out of agreementor touching the subject matter of the agreement shall bedecided by the process of settlement and arbitration asspecified in clause 57 of the statutory modification or re-enactment thereof and made there under and for the time beingin force shall apply and Delhi Court alone shall haveexclusive jurisdiction over the same.”Therefore, the appropriate remedy open to the petitioner is only toinvoke the arbitration clause. The grievance of the petitioner is thatdespite the petitioner seeking arbitration, the respondents have notreferred the dispute to arbitration. If it is so, the petitioner oughtto have filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act 1996. 5. Even in respect of the fresh tender floated by therespondents, the petitioner is not remedyless. He can move theappropriate District Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act 1996 for appropriate interim protective measures, evenpending the initiation of arbitration proceedings. Since Section 9 is aremedy available, pre-arbitration, during the pendency of arbitration andalso post arbitration, the right course of action open to the petitioneris to move the District Court immediately. 6. Therefore, with the above liberty, both the writ petitions aredismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions areclosed. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (CO)/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3To1.The Chairman, Airports Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdar Jung Airport, New Delhi2.The Regional Executive Director, Southern Region, Airports Authority of India, Operational Offices Building, Chennai Airport, Chennai.3.The General Manager (Engineering) Airports Authority of India, Operational Offices Building, Chennai Airport, Chennai.4.The Airport Director Airports Authority of India, Madurai Airport, Madurai. 5. The Assistant General Manager Engineering (Civil) Airports Authority of India, Madurai-625 002Copy toThe Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai+2cc's to Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, Advocate, SR.Nos.42808, 42809RRGH : 12.12.2011 : 3p/9cW.P.(MD) Nos.13859 and 13860 of 2011and M.P.Nos.1,1 and 2,2 of 201107.12.2011