This court is not inclined to uphold the argument that Dispute Resolution Board could be constituted only if petitioner agreed. This court uphold the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and direct the respondents to constitute a Dispute Resolution Board.
Work Contract –––– The petitioners were awarded work contract on 08.09. A letter dated 10.04.2019 was issued to them stating that as per Clause 29 of Special Condition of the Contract Agreement, the provision of GST have been made part of the Contract Agreement. As per Notification No.11/2017 dated 28.06.2017, the rate of GST on works contract with effect from 01.07.2017 was fixed @ 18% which was subsequently revised vide Notification No.24/2017 dated 21.09.2017 to 12%. The petitioners were asked to deposit amount i.e. 6% of their total contract value, within 15 days. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that writ petitions can be directly entertained by this Court despite the provision of alternative remedy of Dispute Resolution Board in Clause 71 of the Agreement and thereafter of Arbitration as provided in Clause 70 of the Agreement. The respondent counsel submitted that writ petitions cannot be entertained in a contractual dispute particularly when efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners in the contract itself. The court observed that Clause 71 provides for referring disputes first to the Disputes Resolution Board in case the contacts valuing to Rs. 10 crore or more. It is therefore Clause 71 which has to be first applied and the remedy available before the Dispute Resolution Board has to be first exhausted.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court, directed the respondents to constitute a Dispute Resolution Board within a period of one month and further directed that the Board shall, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the respondents, give its verdict, within a period of three months thereafter.
This court is not inclined to uphold the argument that Dispute Resolution Board could be constituted only if petitioner agreed. This court uphold the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents and direct the respondents to constitute a Dispute Resolution Board.
Work Contract –––– The petitioners were awarded work contract on 08.09. A letter dated 10.04.2019 was issued to them stating that as per Clause 29 of Special Condition of the Contract Agreement, the provision of GST have been made part of the Contract Agreement. As per Notification No.11/2017 dated 28.06.2017, the rate of GST on works contract with effect from 01.07.2017 was fixed @ 18% which was subsequently revised vide Notification No.24/2017 dated 21.09.2017 to 12%. The petitioners were asked to deposit amount i.e. 6% of their total contract value, within 15 days. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that writ petitions can be directly entertained by this Court despite the provision of alternative remedy of Dispute Resolution Board in Clause 71 of the Agreement and thereafter of Arbitration as provided in Clause 70 of the Agreement. The respondent counsel submitted that writ petitions cannot be entertained in a contractual dispute particularly when efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners in the contract itself. The court observed that Clause 71 provides for referring disputes first to the Disputes Resolution Board in case the contacts valuing to Rs. 10 crore or more. It is therefore Clause 71 which has to be first applied and the remedy available before the Dispute Resolution Board has to be first exhausted.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court, directed the respondents to constitute a Dispute Resolution Board within a period of one month and further directed that the Board shall, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the respondents, give its verdict, within a period of three months thereafter.