UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus M/S PUNA HINDA

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 117 · Decided: 06-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
117
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
M/S PUNA HINDA
(Civil Appeal No. 4981 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2021
[HEMANT GUPTA AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Writ – High Court – Jurisdiction of – Disputed question of
facts relating to recovery of money – A Notice inviting tender was
issued for construction and improvement of road – The bid of the
writ petitioner was accepted and work order was issued – There
was an arbitration clause in the contract for resolving disputes
arising between the parties – The writ petitioner submitted a final
bill and claimed a sum of Rs.23,68,11,589.02 – It was asserted that
payment for amount claimed in the 18 running bills was already
made, but in respect of 19th and 20th running bill, entries were made
in the measurement book, however, the payment was not cleared –
The final bill was returned unactioned and writ petitioner was
informed that the payment up to 18 running bills had already
exceeded the permissible approved amount including escalation
payment – The claim was refused by the appellants – Writ petition
filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Single Judge of the High
Court and affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court – On
appeal, held: The dispute could not be raised by way of a writ
petition on the disputed questions of fact – Though, the jurisdiction
of the High Court is wide but in respect of pure contractual matters
in the field of private law, having no statutory flavour, are better
adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by the parties – The dispute
as to whether the amount is payable or not and/or how much amount
is payable are disputed questions of facts – Such process could be
undertaken only by the agreed forum i.e., arbitration and not by
the Writ Court as it does not have the expertise in respect of
measurements or construction of roads.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court has based its order on the ground
that after five monsoons, the final measurements could not be
ascertained. If the final measurements could not be done at the
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 117
117
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
spot, the contemporary evidence and the measurement books
prepared from time to time could be the basis for determining
the liability of the appellants. The Joint Survey Report is not an
admitted measurement, though some officers might have signed
it. The Report prepared after the completion of work wherein no
such work done is reflected in the measurement book prepared
during execution of work is an attempt to inflate the claim raised
by the writ petitioner. The entire amount claimed by the writ
petitioner is disputed. [Para 23][135-B-D]
2. Therefore, the dispute could not be raised by way of a
writ petition on the disputed questions of fact. Though, the
jurisdiction of the High Court is wide but in respect of pure
contractual matters in the field of private law, having no statutory
flavour, are better adjudicated upon by the forum agreed to by
the parties. The dispute as to whether the amount is payable or
not and/or how much amount is payable are disputed questions
of facts. There is no admission on the part of the appellants to
infer that the amount stands crystallized. Therefore, in the absence
of any acceptance of Joint Survey Report by the competent
authority, no right would accrue to the writ petitioner only because
measurements cannot be undertaken after passage of time.
Maybe, the resurvey cannot take place but the measurement
books of the work executed from time to time would form a
reasonable basis for assessing the amount due and payable to
the writ petitioner, but such process could be undertaken only
by the agreed forum i.e., arbitration and not by the Writ Court as
it does not have the expertise in respect of measurements or
construction of roads. [Para 24][136-A-D]
Kerala State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Kurien E.
Kalathil & Ors. (2000) 6 SCC 293 : [2000] 1 Suppl.
SCR 581; Joshi Technologies International Inc v. Union
of India & Ors. (2015) 7 SCC 728 : [2015] 6 SCR
1042 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 581
referred to
Para 17
[2015] 6 SCR 1042
referred to
Para 18
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
119
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.4981 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2017 of the High Court
of Gauhati, Itanagar Bench in W.A. No.23 (AP) of 2017.
K. M. Nataraj, ASG, B. K. Satija, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Udai Khanna,
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., 

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