TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD versus M/S. SATYANARAYANA BROTHERS PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 07-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD
A
v.
MIS. SA TY ANARA Y ANA BROTHERS PVT. LTD.
FEBRUARY 7, 2007
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.]
B
:x
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Drinking water project
formulated by State Government-Delay in execution of-Disputes-Appellant
not raising any substantial question of law that needs to be considered by c
Supreme Court-Questions raised are only question of fact-Matter was fully
heard in the earlier round by Supreme Court whereupon matter was remitted
to High Court-Well-considered judgment rendered by High Court on
remission does not call for any interference.
Certain disputes arose between Respondent-contractor and Appellant- D
Board over delay in execution of drinking water project formulated by State
~
Government. Arbitral proceedings were initiated in which both the parties
~
appointed an arbitrator each who in turn appointed an Umpire. Umpire passed
an arbitral award which was set aside by the Single Judge of High Court.
Division Bench however passed decree in terms of the award passed by the
E
Umpire. Respondent filed SLP before the Supreme Court which remitted the
matter to Division Bench ofthe High Court. On remission, the Division Bench
held in favour of the Respondent holding that it had not committed any breach
of contract. Hence the present appeal.
....
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
F
HELD: The appellant is still proceeding under a false premise that the
contractor is solely responsible for the delay in the execution of the work
and the breach of contract which have been conclusively found against the
appellant by the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court
while setting aside the award passed by the Umpire in the present case. The G
appellant has not raised any substantial question of law that needs to be
.). i,
considered by this Court. The questions raised are only questions of fact and
in view of the concurrent findings by both the Single Judge and the Division
Bench, no interference by this Court is called for particularly when a matter
347
H
348
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 2 S.C.R.
A was fully heard in the earlier round by the Supreme Court. The matter was
remitted to the Division Bench of the High Court by this Court only after
considering all aspects and the questions involved in the case. Now, it has
been conclusively found that the respondent-contractor was not responsible
for any breach of contract. The High Court, has decided the matter strictly in
accordance with the remand order made by this Court. The High Court also
B has not entered into any finding regarding the respective claims of the parties
but set aside the award of the Umpire only on the ground oflegal malafidcs.
The well-considered judgment rendered by the High Court on remission from
this Court does not call for any interference. [Paras 13 to 15)
[352-D-E, G; 353-A]
":Y
c
D
E
F
G
H
Sathyanarayana Brothers (P) Ltd., v. T.N. Water Supply & Drainage
Board, [2004) 5 SCC 314, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2880-2881 of
2005.
From the Final Judgment and Order dated ·24.3.2004 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in O.S.A. Nos. 248/1989 and 59 of 1993.
Mohan Parasaran, A.S.G., Senthil Jagadeesan and Rakesh K. Shanna for
the Appellant.
Dipankar P. Gupta, T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, P.S. Nair, Indira Nair, Krishnan
Nandakumar and T.G. Narayanan Nair for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. I. Heard Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned
Additional Solicitor General for the appellant and Mr. Dipanker P. Gupta and
Mr. T. L. V. Iyer, learned senior counsel for the respondent.
2. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Madras dt.24.03.2004 in OSA Nos. 248of1989 and 59 of 1993,
the above two appeals were filed.
3. The case on hand has a chequered history.
lbe Government of Tamil Nadu fonnulated a scheme known as "Veeranam
Project" to provide drinking water to the city of Chennai and thereby overcome
the problem of acute water scarcity in the city of Chennai. In order to
implement the aforesaid scheme, the Government invited tenders for
~
•
...
~
'
A
~-
TAMIL NADU WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD 1·. SA n· ANARAYANA BROTHERS PVT.LTD. jLAKSHMANAN. J.J 349
manufacturing, supplying and delivering 1676 mm pre-stressed concrete pipes A
-...... .,~
and fittings including transp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.