LexM/S. RAM BARAI SINGH & CO. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2014] 11 S.C.R. 286 M/S. RAM BARAi SINGH & CO. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 11465 of 2014) DECEMBE,R 17, 2014 [M.Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KRITI SINGH, JJ.] • Constitution of India, 1951 - Art. 226 - Writ petition by appellant - No objection taken by respondent as to C entertainment of writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy - Writ petition rendered on merits by the Single Judge of High Court - Letters Patent Appeal by respondent - Division Bench allowed LPA, setting aside the order of Single Judge on the ground that an alternative o remedy by way of arbitration clause could have been resorted to - On appeal, held: Constitutional remedy by way of writ petition is always available to an aggrieved party and an arbitration clause in an agreement between the part;es cannot ipso facto render a writ petition "not maintainable" - On facts, E there was no existing agreement because the work had been completed and payment had already been made, and the final judgment in the writ petition was rendered on merits - Thus, order of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the Single Judge is restored. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. A constitutional remedy by way of writ petition is always available to an aggrieved party and an arbitration clause in an agreement between the parties G cannot ipso facto render a writ petition "not maintainable" as wrongly held by the Division Bench. Availability of alternative remedy is definitely a permissible gmund for refusal by a writ court to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. But once the respondents had not H 286 • • RAM BARAi SINGH & CO. v. STATE OF BIHAR 287 objected to entertainment of the writ petition on ground of A availability of alternative remedy, the final judgment rendered on merits, cannot be faulted and set aside only on noticing by the Division Bench that an alternative remedy by way of arbitration clause could have been resorted to. On facts, there was no existing agreement B because the work had been completed and payment had already been made long back. Thus, the order under appeal is set aside and the judgment and order of the Single Judge is restored. [Para 12, 13, 14) [291-0-G; 292-C] State of U.P. & Ors. v. Bridge & Roof Company (India) C Ltd. 1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 762: (1996) 6 sec 22; ABL.: International Ltd. & Anr. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 553 - referrect to. Case Law Reference: 1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 762 referred to (2004) a sec 553 referred to Para 10 Para 10 D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. E 11465 of 2014. From the Judgment & Order dated 12.01.2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 762 of 2009. Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant. Manish Kumar (for Gopal Singh) for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J. 1. Heard the parties. Leave granted. F G 2. This appeal is directed against final judgment and order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the Division Bench of Patna High H 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. A Court in L.P.A. No.762 of 2009 whereby the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the respondents herein was allowed and order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.02.2009 in Writ Petition bearing C.W.J.C. No.10173 of 2008 was set aside on the sole ground that there was an arbitration clause in an B agreement between the ·parties and since such alternative remedy was not availed by the appellant, the writ petition itself was not maintainable. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the aforesaid order of the Division Bench on facts as well as on C law. On law, it was contended that the writ petition could not have been held not maintainable, more so when no such objection was taken by the other side. On facts, it was submitted that the agreement noticed by the Division Bench no doubt D contained an arbitration clause entitling either of the parties to invoke arbitration by the concerned Superintending Engineer in case of any dispute arising out of the agreement but the Division Bench failed to notice that the agreement itself was no longer in existence because the work was completed long back and payments including payment on account of labour E escalation costs amounting to Rs.9.53 lacs was paid in February 1992. Thus, according to the appellant, the agreement dated 06.0
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.