9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Era-Infrastructure Engineering Ltd. (EIEL), one of the partners in the Joint Venture and in charge of the construction, had entered into agreements with the petitioners. The agreement with the petitioner in W.P(C). No. 20568 of 2018 is for piling and the other civil works, with the petitioner in W.P(C). No. 18574 of 2018 for the supply of crushed materials and the petitioner in W.P(C). No. 12463 of 2019 for supply of steel and other materials. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the DMRC. 3. Leading the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, learned counsel Sri. S. Easwaran submitted that even though the agreements were entered into between the petitioners and EIEL, the construction work a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its affairs and moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has also been declared. It is pointed out that in terms of the contract entered into between DMRC and Era-Ranken JV, a bank guarantee of Rs. 17,09,12,913/- was submitted as security, which has been encashed by the DMRC and an amount of Rs. 41,61,465/- retained as security deposit for realisation of the amounts due. It is stated that going by the estimates, the amount due from Era-Ranken JV is likely to exceed the amount retained as security deposit. 5. Learned counsel for the DMRC reiterated the contention of there being no privity of contract between the DMRC and the petitioners and of the writ petitions being not maintainable. Reliance is placed on the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e terms of the agreements entered into between the petitioner and EIEL, the amounts due to the petitioners is to be paid by EIEL. For the default committed by the said Company, the DMRC cannot be made liable, unless the bills are cleared and a request for direct payment made by EIEL and accepted by the DMRC. 8. In the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the DMRC, the Apex Court has reiterated the settled position that the remedy for violation of a term of contract is not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In Kurien E. Kalathil's case (supra), the Apex Court observed that a contract would not become statutory simply because it is for construction of a public utility and was awarded by a statutory body and that like p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
