D.H.B. NARENDRA CONSTRUCTION Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-623
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 14,2020

D.H.B. Narendra Construction Appellant
VERSUS
Union of India And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,J. - (1.) The instant appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 has been filed challenging the order passed by District Judge, Ballia dated 18.12.2019, in Misc. Case No. 15 of 2019, rejecting the application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the said Act.
(2.) In brief, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the appellant was awarded a work order on 26.12.2018 by the Railways for construction of platforms, gate lodge, signal and station building, foot-over bridge and other miscellaneous works between Ballia and Karimuddinpur, in connection with doubling work of the railway line. The case of the appellant is that the Railways did not provide design for certain sectors to the appellant. Consequently, the work could not be started in those sectors. In other sectors, where layout design was provided to the appellant, it claims to have executed substantial part of the work. The appellant was served with a notice dated 24.7.2019, requiring it to show cause as to why the contract be not terminated for not being able to execute it within time. The appellant apprehending that in pursuance of the said show cause notice, its contract would be cancelled, approached the Court under Section 9, seeking an injunction restraining the Railways from cancelling the work contract dated 26.12.2018, or from forfeiting security tendered in respect thereof and for a further direction that the time under the contract be extended till March 2020 and the Railways be restrained from interfering in the execution of the remaining work by the appellant.
(3.) The Railways contested the application and asserted that the appellant had failed to abide by the terms of the work order dated 26.12.2018. The work layout was duly handed over to the appellant on 1.11.2018, but the appellant failed to execute the work. The work to be executed is of public importance. Delay on the part of the appellant in execution thereof has resulted in escalation of the cost. The appellant is not entitled to any injunction.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.