VIDHYA TELELINKS LIMITED Vs. MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered into contract for supply of PIJF telecom cables in 13 different sizes to the respondent/MTNL on 15/2/2000. On the request or the petitioner time for delivery of 7 sizes of cables was extended by 31/3/2000 and the delivery was made. On further request of the petitioner for extension of time for supply of the remaining 6 sizes of cables, the respondent/MTNL extended the time of delivery in respect of only 4 sizes and the petitioner supplied them by the extended date of 31/5/2000. The petitioner again requested the respondent for extending the time for delivery of remaining 2 sizes of the cables [2000/0.4(A) and 2000/0.4(UA) sizes] but the respondent instead issued a letter dated 26/6/2001 (annexure 'J' to the petition) that the competent authority had conveyed to short closure in respect of outstanding supplies of PIJF cables with liquidated damages charges of Rs.7,43,907.00 payable by the petitioner in respect of non-delivery of cables 2000/0.4(A)/2000/0.4(UA) and outstanding supply of cable of the size of 1200/0.4(U) by 0.099 kms and asked the petitioner to deposit the amount. The petitioner challenged this letter in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner filed this application for grant of ad-interim injunction order restraining the respondent from giving effect to or taking any step in pursuance to the impugned letter dated 26/6/2001 and further restraining the respondent from recovering ' Rs.7,43,907.00 as liquidated damages from the petitioner by way of deducting/withholding the amount from the money due and payable by the respondent to the petitioner under the purchase order dated 12/10/1999 etc..

(3.) The main plank of the argument of the counsel for the respondent is that the writ petition is filed for enforcement of a private contract and it could not be entertained by this Court in its writ jurisdiction. No relief can be granted to the petitioner in exercise of the extra ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the petitioner is disputing the imposition of liquidated damages and this question cannot be decided in a writ petition. He also urged that the agreement contained an arbitration clause and the petitioner, if aggrieved by breach of any contract of supply of goods by the respondent, could have invoked that clause. He cited State of U.P. and others Vs. Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd. (1996) 6 SCC 22 and Kerala State Electricity Board and another Vs. Kurien E. Kalathil and others (2000)6 SCC 293 in support of his arguments.