RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA, J. - (1.) MR . P.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in not paying the promised amount is arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal and, therefore, they should be directed to pay the promised amount with interest and costs. He relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in ABL International Limited and Anr. V/s. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Ors..
(2.) MR . Gulam Mustafa, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the writ Court should not interfere in this contractual matter involving disputed facts, especially when there was an arbitration clause. Moreover, the claim is barred by limitation. The dispute lies in a narrow compass. According to the petitioner, the respondents directed the petitioner to transport coal between 13.10.1993 to 31.1.1994 for a distance longer than what was stipulated in the earlier contract with a clear stipulation that new rate will be paid for such transportation, whereas, according to the respondents, as the total quantity of coal to be transported under the earlier contract (ended on 12.10.1993) could not be transported, the contract was extended on the existing rate/old rate.
(3.) THE contention of the respondents is absolutely wrong and contrary to their own documents. A contract was awarded to the petitioner for the period 12.10.1992 to 12.10.1993 for transporting coal from stock of Urimari to Central Saunda Railway Siding. The quantity mentioned was nine lacks metric tones. The distance mentioned was 5.4 km. and the rate was 18.15 per M.T. (Annexure 1).;