Bbr Construction Co. Vs. Union of India

Bbr Construction Co. vs Union of India

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Oct 11, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1059417

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1059417
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Sanjib Banerjee
Decided On: Oct 11, 2012
Subject: Arbitration

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Arbitration

Key legal issue: Arbitration

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bbr Construction Co.

Respondent

Union of India

Excerpt

.....the work done have been wrongfully withheld. the railways seek to justify the acts on their part on the basis of what the railways perceived to be the failure on the part of the petitioning contractor to perform the contract. the petitioner says that the railways may cite the termination of this contract to wrongfully withhold payment of monies due to the petitioner in respect of other, unrelated contracts. no order can be made to either stay the termination of the contract or to ask the railways to return any money or pay any money to the petitioner since such matters have to be considered in the arbitral reference. the petitioner says that the petitioner still has substantial time to invoke the arbitration agreement in view of the provisions in the general conditions governing railway contracts. for a period of 180 days from july 16, 2012 (which is the date of the termination of the contract) the railways are restrained from deducting any money due to the petitioner in respect of other, unrelated contracts, merely by virtue of the termination of this contract. this order, however, cannot be interpreted to operate as a mandatory injunction on the railways to make payment of the monies claimed under the other, unrelated contracts, by the petitioner herein. if the petitioner invokes the arbitration agreement by citing the disputes to be carried to a reference within 180 days from july 16, 2012, this order will continue till the conclusion of the arbitral reference. if the petitioner makes no demand within 180 days from july 16, 2012, this order will stand dissolved. ap no.579 of 2012 is disposed of as above without any order as to costs. urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (sanjib banerjee, j.) kc. ar(cr)

Full Judgment

AP No.579 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction BBR CONSTRUCTION Co.Versus UNION OF INDIA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SANJIB BANERJEE Date :

11. h October, 2012.

Appearance: Mr.Ayan Banerjee, Adv.Mr.Saiful Alam, Adv.Mr.R.Sengupta, Adv.Ms.Aparna Banerjee, Adv.The Court : The petitioner was engaged by the railways for the construction of railway bridges and complains in this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 of the arbitrary termination of the agreement on specious grounds.

The petitioner says that a performance bank guarantee has been wrongfully invoked and the payment thereunder received by the railways.

In addition, the petitioner says that the security deposit furnished by the petitioner has been forfeited and monies due to the petitioner for the work done have been wrongfully withheld.

The railways seek to justify the acts on their part on the basis of what the railways perceived to be the failure on the part of the petitioning contractor to perform the contract.

The petitioner says that the railways may cite the termination of this contract to wrongfully withhold payment of monies due to the petitioner in respect of other, unrelated contracts.

No order can be made to either stay the termination of the contract or to ask the railways to return any money or pay any money to the petitioner since such matters have to be considered in the arbitral reference.

The petitioner says that the petitioner still has substantial time to invoke the arbitration agreement in view of the provisions in the general conditions governing railway contracts.

For a period of 180 days from July 16, 2012 (which is the date of the termination of the contract) the railways are restrained from deducting any money due to the petitioner in respect of other, unrelated contracts, merely by virtue of the termination of this contract.

This order, however, cannot be interpreted to operate as a mandatory injunction on the railways to make payment of the monies claimed under the other, unrelated contracts, by the petitioner herein.

If the petitioner invokes the arbitration agreement by citing the disputes to be carried to a reference within 180 days from July 16, 2012, this order will continue till the conclusion of the arbitral reference.

If the petitioner makes no demand within 180 days from July 16, 2012, this order will stand dissolved.

AP No.579 of 2012 is disposed of as above without any order as to costs.

Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(SANJIB BANERJEE, J.) kc.

AR(CR)

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2012 Same Parties Bbr Construction Co. vs Union of India Same Subject Arbitration Same Judge Sanjib Banerjee