Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 40 (UTT)

Affine Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

2023-01-09

MANOJ K.TIWARI, VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - The petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition to seek the quashing of the recovery notice dated 22.11.2022, whereby the respondents have proposed to make a recovery of Rs. 8,09,309/- from the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks exclusion of 10% General Damages, included in the impugned Cancellation Advice dated 22.11.2022, and to reissue the same without any penalty. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was awarded a developmental contract. Admittedly, the said contract has not been performed, which has led to the respondents issuing the impugned communication dated 22.11.2022, which reads as follows :- 'In continuation to this Office Cancellation Advice cited above, you are hereby informed that the Purchaser is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.809309/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Nine Thousand Three Hundred Nine only) towards extra expenditure in General Damages in terms of Clause 0702 of the IRS Conditions of Contract 1970 governing the said contract. You are hereby called upon to pay the said sum to the credit of the Accounts Officer, viz. Bill Paying Officer and forward the Chief Cashiers reciept to this office within 21 days from the date of issue of this letter, falling which the Purchaser will be compelled to take further action as per the Terms and Conditions of the Contract. Alternatively you can convey your willingness for deduction of an equivalent amount from your pending bills.' 3. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India/ respondent no. 1, who appears on advance notice, however, disputes the fact that the contract in question was a developmental contract. 4. The dispute raised by the petitioner arises out of the petitioner's contract with the respondents. We have inquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner, if there is an arbitration agreement in the contract. He states that there is an arbitration agreement contained in the contract between the parties. 5. The petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy under the contract. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. 6. Consequently, pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.