{"id":34076,"date":"2009-10-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-04-19T10:10:26","modified_gmt":"2016-04-19T04:40:26","slug":"dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Dolomite Berhad vs National Highways Authority Of … on 14 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Dolomite Berhad vs National Highways Authority Of … on 14 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Anand Byrareddy<\/div>\n
TEE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 14\"' DAY OF OCT0BE'}}:~~2(1Qi9__\"__t:If \" \n\nBEFORE:\n\nTHE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE s\u00a7.NAN[\u00a7f'vI34'15I3iI4\u00a7R-1\u20ac'Dl3f .;_I\n\nWRIT PETITION No.2'5V778. OEI2nO5(GIM;tREs)t  :1\nC\/W WRIT PETITION No;:~I.7_os OF 200sIGM--nEs)\n\nWRIT PETITION No.2577s oI?II2Q()5\u00a3(;WI-IRES)'  \nBETWEEN:    I I I I\n\nDoiomite Berh\ufb01d,  _. .,       \n\nNo.3, JalaniSBC'*--2V,\"\"\"\u00b0--.__         \n\nTarnan S_rI.BatII\"'Ca,.YEs, 3   A  \n\n68 1.00,: 'IISelang.oI\u00a2 _Da*f'\u00a7IVi   I  I\n\nMalaysia, -. ' .   ' ~\n\nThrough\u00bbThe Pi'CjCC'I__IVIaI}?},g6lf..~\"  PETITIONER\n\n(By  Vonugopak, Senior Counsel and\n\n , '_ Sh;'\u00ab\u00bb;'..?{\u00a7.S'hasVhikiran .ShOtty, Advocate)\n\nE} V  Nati'Onj_a1aI'HighWays Authority of India,\n (Mini\ufb01ry of Road, Transport and Highways,\n\n'Government of India)\n\nA. ,  PI\"()ject Implementation Unit KPIU)\n\n._  Near J.}Vi.I.T., NR4 (Km 201),\n\n'A Chitradurga -577 502,\n\nKamataka,\n\n8\n\n\n\nl\\3\n\nThrough its Chairman.\n\nThe Louis Berger Group, INC.\n\nSree Lakshmi Venkateshwara Nilaya,\nVidya Nagar Extension,\nChitradu1'ga~577 502,\n\nKarnataka,\n\nThrough the Engineeit\n\nA.L.Sudershan Construction (fornpany Lirnii1e:d,~  it \n\n7-~3-~719, Rashtrapathi Road,   \nSecundarabad--500 O03,   3\nThrough its Managing Di1'ector\".'-i  \n\nStandard Chartered Bank, *  K  \nRaheja Tower, 6%' Floor,  C\n26, M.G.Road, V  \nBangalore-560 003*.-_  _ \n\nStandared C red   V  V\nG_rindEays\u00b0Centre,   ~\n}.9',\u00abRajaji S,a'Iaij,*._   \nCheiinai~600 001.. \" \n\n.  'i\ufb01taizdared Chartered Bank,\n._   Connaught Circus,\n3    10 00].\n\n.* _   Stir;-iierne Infrastructure Limited\n and MBL Infrastructure L\u00a3_m_i:ed,\n\nRegistered Office at No.8,\nBhavani, Service Industrial Estate,\n\nit a in Powal, Mumbai-400 076.\n\nSite office Taralabalu Nagar,\nNea1'J.M.I.T. College,\n\nE\n\n\n\nBehind NHAI Office,\nChitradurga--577 502.  RESPONDENTS\n\n(By Shriifdaya Holla Senior Counsel, ,\n\nSmt.Shi1pa Shah, Singahria and Partners for \n\nShri.C.M.\\\/eeeranna for Respondent 2,\n\nM\/s.Rangai-aju and Prabhakaran for\" 'p   nu\n\nShri.G.Krishna.murty for Resptindentlf)  A j;\n\n>i< =%il'(i\"V227 of if\n\nthe Constitution of India, p1'ayin.g.. tov.de't:.lare tf1'a--t.._tAhe;3action of\nthe respondents trying to_i\u20ac':ncas;h thee\"BVa.nk~-guarantees refereed\nto in paragraph 6 above as f1-aud_u'ie}nt, hi_ghiy_arbitrary, iilegal\nand without authority of'1awv:and etc;  \"  ., \n\nWRIT PET'\u00a5'f1{jN.ii\\fCi.5:76c}\u00abbi?.2{i0i?(_\u00a7.M\u00bbRES)\naETw,aah \" ~ 3'1,  if  A\nDoiornite' Be'1'had,x._ii\"  ~_ 9\" 1\n\nNo.3, Ja1ani:'},BC 2,    \nTaman\"Sifi.Batuflavies, '\n\n V'   Selangor D\ufb02aru-1--\u00abEhsan,\n .Ma.1ays_ia,_ \n ,__.TEir.ough\"\u00abT\u00a5jhe\u00b0Proj,ect Manager.  PETYTIONER\n\n(13iy--.__iSh1'.i:i\\ti..;}irishnan Venugopai, Senior Counsel and\n\n Shri.1{.Si'hashikiran Shetty, Advocate)\n\nif is.1si~AVNn.;\n\ni  National Highways Authority of India,\n\n(Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways,\n\n3\n\n\n\nGovernment of India)\n\nProject Implementation Unit t PIU)\n\nNear J.M.I.T., NPL4 (Km 20} ),\nChitradurga -577 502,\n\nKatnataka,\n\nThrough its Chairman.\n\nThe Louis Berger Group, INC'.  _ .\nSree Lakshmi Venkateshwar;-1 i\\Iilaya.,_\nVidya Nagar Extension,   \nChitradu1'ga--577 502, 'V\n\nKarnataka, __\n\nThrough the Engineei:,_\n\nA.L.Sudersha_n Const1f_u'ction__(Torn}:)-anyL..Li tnited,\n7~3~7_i9, Rasht._tapathi Road,_  '  '\nSecundar\u00e91ba\u00a7?3~\u00bbt5CQ     \nThrough VN\u00a7af:aging\u00ab._D'ireCt_m*'._:  '\n\nStandard. Bank, _ \nRaheja' Towe 1}; ._6\"' ieeohr; -. '\n26,\"M.G.Roa_d;  V.  \nBan gLae\u00a7.ote<5 60. 00  \n\n 'Standatd Chartered' Bank,\n. _  Gtind1aysCentte,\n " ~VtA9t,\u00a21za_;ajtsaa1at,\n Ch'en1tai--60wO' 001.\n\ni'.""Staf1:(.fa1'ti Chartered Bank,\n\nH-\u00ab.2,'3~Connaught Circus,\n\n* ~t._New Delhi-1 to 001.\n\nL' HM\/s.Supreme Infrastructure Limited\n\nand MBL Infrastructure Limited,\n\nS\n\n\n\nRegistered Office at No.8,\nBhavani, Service Industrial Estate,\nHT Powal, Mumbai-~40O 076.\n\nSite office Taralabalu Nagar,\n\nNear }.lVl.IT. College,\n\nBehind NHAI Office,\n\nChiti'adurga--577 502.    \n\n(By Shri.Udaya Holia Senior Counsclilg  if\n\nSmt.Shilpa Shah, Singahria a'nd\u00ab-.._Partn'erllfnr iiesjondent ll, \n\nShri.C.M.Veee.ranna for Respondenf\ufb02,   \nM\/s.Rangaraju and P1'\u00a3'xl_)h.Etl<2l1"'\u00e91y1_'l.._il"'0,_l"' 'V.l\u00a7espondevntsVAvf-4 to 6\nShri.G.Krishnamurty for R'e.sponden{ 7)._ _ L' ' .. y.\n\nThis Writ Petition isfiled unrler A'rtic"l--es 226 and 227 of\nthe Constitution of lndiagg praying..to*~.quas'h'the communication\ndated 10.3.2036 issued'. by the j--plroj'e'c'tl director of the\nrespondent.l=:'lnatioiial, hi'g._l_jiway.sV':Ay.authority of India and\/or\ndeclare that t'hCll"'lri:yjocatioVnby .respdndent that of the Bank\nGiiaranteesl"rnentioneii"'in'pai*agraphWl above and the action of\nthe Res1i2,ondent.,4"to'=-6;'standard 'chartered bank in releasing the\namounts under tlie_said_ b'an:k~.g"ua1'a1:1tees in fraudulent, highly\narbitrary, illegal' and'..\/orylfwithoiit authority of law Vide\nAnnexure--A aI7'tCi_6['C:,'l' l \n\n.V  _  These "petitionslllllhaving been heard and reserved on\nV__6.8.2909.and:'c.orn.ing on for pronouncement of orders this day,\n\nthe Court-.de1Vi_v'elijed' the fol_lowing:--\n\n5\n\n\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Heard the counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
2. These petitions are disposed of by this c0mm’on.’__ordei* <\/p>\n
as the parties are common and are given the  in”\n<\/p>\n
both the petitions and the reliefs ci:\u00a3iAmed..arfe in ‘i’espeC’t’ofithe.i<\/p>\n
same subject matter.\n<\/p>\n
3. The facts ofthe case are___a”s-foilows:i” ~ it I
\nThe petitioner, M\/s’;Diol0inite’ is, a subsidiary of a<\/p>\n
public  third respondent, M\/s. ‘<\/p>\n
A L Sudershan Cons:t1’iiiC’tioiii”Company Limited, Secunderabad<\/p>\n
is a govrnpariiy  under the Companies Act, I956.<\/p>\n
 Authority of India, respondent No.1<\/p>\n
it'(hereina’f*ie’r,,i_e\ufb01ier1″ed to as “NHAI” for brevity) had invited bids<\/p>\n
V .V by notiification dated 31.5.2001 for the rehabilitation and<\/p>\n
  of Chitradurga Section of the Western Traiiisport<\/p>\n
  Tumkur–Haveri NH-4 (National Highway No.4)<\/p>\n
\u00e9<\/p>\n
Project from 1<.rn.189 to k.n'i.2()'.? — Package No.WTC 3<\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as the "Project" for brevity).<\/p>\n
The petitioner and the third respondent had entered a<\/p>\n
joint Venture agreement dated 5.7.200}, agree_iri.g <\/p>\n
profits equally, and had subm_i.tted theirbid   ii<\/p>\n
invitation as on 22.12.2001. The  <\/p>\n
been accepted an ag1'eement'–v.tw'as e)iecuted_'*_between1V the V<\/p>\n
petitioner and respondent   Theiconsideration
\nwas Rs.87.24 crore. The arider the project<\/p>\n
was    be11ic'i':inmenced on 1.3.2002 and<\/p>\n
completieduibyi  months). The petitioner had<\/p>\n
furnished se"ve.rai~ban1< guarantees, in respect of various<\/p>\n
1'"cont'ingencies~__fo1' the due performance of contract, valued at<\/p>\n
"'ov'e'1_f  with the execution of the agreement and<\/p>\n
release ofim<'\u00a7bi1ization advances. Within two months from the<\/p>\n
 up=,cot.n.:neacernent of work a dispute broke out between the<\/p>\n
–   namely, the originai design of the Project was for 4<\/p>\n
57><\/p>\n
laning the highway at a particular point where there was a
\nhillock. The excavation provided under the contract as per the
\nBil} of Quantities (BOQ) was 38000 cu.m under ordinary rock<\/p>\n
and 3800 cum. under hard rock. This was sought to <\/p>\n
by NHAI under communications dated i5.5.?.002  .<\/p>\n
which required the petitioner to change theiideisign. ifroirri  <\/p>\n
laning to 6 laning, in the particular l1i’i1oC:i_\u00a7areaii'(c’h.<\/p>\n
ch 195.050); to provide. ser’viceV1’o_ad~sp of  metres’ “instead ‘V<\/p>\n
of 4 metres; and the side.\u00bbsiopes.iw’c*–1’r%\u00a7’–req:1ired to”‘ue~tiattened,<\/p>\n
re uirin \ufb01attenin ahillock bi’ hardrockieiteaivation.
\nq 3 3 Y .\n<\/p>\n
In7.c_respp’onseVii’orthiisp,'”the'”peti’tione1′ proposed various rates<\/p>\n
for the addit.i_o3aa1 Vw.oi*ks,”  communications dated 3.6.2002<\/p>\n
 and Ho’vve.V_e.r,’ it is the petitioner’s case that it had<\/p>\n
V’–,co.ntii1ued._Vito’-eiiecute the work on the assurances of the<\/p>\n
rep1’e.seintativ’es_  N HA1 and M\/s.Louis Berger Group Inc. (The<\/p>\n
 .  *.E,nginee”rs appointed as Supervision Consultants, in terms of the<\/p>\n
it  pV.’aigI’e.eri1ent) respondent NO.2 hereinabove, that the enhanced<\/p>\n
  rates would be mutuaily agreed to in due course.<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
9<\/span>
\nIt was on 8.11.2002 that the second respondent issued a
\nvariation order No.3\/00}. This was issued in terms of Ciause
\n51 of the agreement and is a formal expression of the additional<\/p>\n
works and according to the petitioner, is used for pL1ifposes?.of<\/p>\n
making interim payments to the petitioner. ‘Fhe_-‘petiiitiiohier  ~<\/p>\n
said to have Compieted the addit%onav1.._worksHii’nei\u00a7idii1gi_’_=the._V <\/p>\n
excavation of 400000 cubic metres ofrocifiiat anaddi.tit;na1:coist*._<\/p>\n
of Rs.20 crore. It is stated tvha’t..t>the “es_tirnatej:I rock it<\/p>\n
excavation in terms of the.v_Bii1.~eiot’ ‘Qiuantit.ies was”‘3’800 cum.
\nwhereas the hard rock excaVatec?1″t>_t;\/0  biasting aione<\/p>\n
was 2697 petit%oner’s case that during the<\/p>\n
period JL1n'<':s.__2O02x0' 2004, without the issue of<\/p>\n
 '_ enhvaricedii't'ates he'ing___se.ttIed, the entire working capital of the<\/p>\n
 petitioneuwast iiblocked in the excavation work. To add to its<\/p>\n
woes} the petitioner's joint venture partner who was required to<\/p>\n
iyinvest 50% of the working capital pleaded inability on account<\/p>\n
i"o\u00a7.1_ac}:; of funds and a dispute having arisen between them, the<\/p>\n
 .._Vrnatter was in arbitration proceedings. It was, therefore,<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
1 (3<\/p>\n
imperative for the petitioner that respondent No.1 released
\nfunds on the basis of the enhanced rates.\n<\/p>\n
The second respondent had issued a variation orderi\u00bb3{\/ClQ8<\/p>\n
fixing a rate of Rs.180 per cum. for the excavationioif ‘orfdinar*-}?__ .<\/p>\n
rock. As the petitioner had claimed. an e–nhia”ne:ed ii”ate..Vo’f_ <\/p>\n
Rs.583.36 per cu.m., the petitioner:’acc:eptedlithe’ ,ra’ter <\/p>\n
protest while pointing out Vth.ata_ethe h”e.2;cayat’ion~-iViireqdired i’<\/p>\n
controlled blasting as the shard rock  VVprimarily”iigneous rock
\nand requested fixing a higher.irate’.v’E’l3ut.,__thefse(;Ond respondent<\/p>\n
withdrew Vazfiatio’-n_:Order 31008 u\u00abnde-if’–the_:dictates of the first<\/p>\n
respondent and on i’ts9.arguinevnt that the price for excavation of
\noi’dinaryi’and\u00ab.hard. vrock._iNaisVi”p.r<:;-vidcd in the Bill of Quantities.
\nThe same 2 -not constitute 2% of the contract price.<\/p>\n
'\u00a5"hereifore;~ under 52.2 of the Contract Conditions of<\/p>\n
V. i'Partict;.lai5'iApplicationmihereinafter referred to as "CCPA", for<\/p>\n
 i_)reViit'yT) :the.p.eti.tioner was not entitled for an enhanced rate.<\/p>\n
 ""Thepieit_itioner immediately raised a dispute and sought<\/p>\n
-V :’eferei1ce’;i,Qf” this claim for enhanced rates for the additional<\/p>\n
\u00a7<\/p>\n
11<\/span>
\nworks, to the Disputes Adjudication Board (hereinafter referred
\nto as the “DAB”, for brevity) under Clause 67.} of the CCPA,<\/p>\n
as on 22.9.2004.\n<\/p>\n
The DAB on consideration of the rival cot’ater1t.i’ons<\/p>\n
concluded that the petitioner’s claim ought <\/p>\n
Considered at the earliest and the secondp reisponideint vhaving-.<\/p>\n
delayed the classification of the rock for_ over two’ years \u00abarid<\/p>\n
having provided its report to th’e,p’etitionei< vvas place.
\nBut rejected the petitionei-'apclai_nimf<51'i-Ienhanced ravtesgivaccepting<\/p>\n
the NHAFS interpretation oftlfieticlaiises.ViVofl.ith.e.'–~contract, by an<\/p>\n
order dated  *  A  <\/p>\n
By a"il_ettar  the second respondent the<\/p>\n
 SupVei*3visi_iig Consiultanti. Engineers. extended the time for<\/p>\n
 cotiiijpiexioiiitwork to \u00a315.] 1.2015.\n<\/p>\n
A’ “dHowe’\\re_1″i,t” the second respondent issued notices dated<\/p>\n
“~~v._’__V’-5.7.2OU’3.,’__land 19.8.2005 recommciiding termination of the<\/p>\n
A  p:.”pAetit_ioner’s contract, which prompted NHAI to bring relentless<\/p>\n
 2 pressure on the petitioner to take extreme measures to expedite<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
the work or suffer the consequences. NHAI threatened to
\ninvoke bank guarantees as per letters dated 26.10.200\u00a7 and<\/p>\n
7.11.2005. There was no response to the petitione1″.\u00abs”request<\/p>\n
for extension of time. The petitioner contend-3:”tha.t_:’i’t-it V’<\/p>\n
ultimately informed after the officizsilsmof’ <\/p>\n
contacted personaily, that a decisioniiw_ais”.takeni.o*nA18.1 <\/p>\n
not to extend any further time f’oir”~9o’1tnpietion_of’the contract. It
\nwas thereafter that the pe;ti’t-i_one_’ri haidt-he first iofthese writ
\npetitions seeking__ to res.tta’in.V  ‘terminating the<\/p>\n
contract and  _iiiV(‘iE<ii';r.gi  AV.biank""'gua1'antees and for
\ncompen_sat1o'n ii1'ra:'s-pAectio'tfrthe additional works.<\/p>\n
On 1,2005*.i.ti:is"_;~court had issued notice to the<\/p>\n
 respondentspbut did.nQt.g2fant any interirn relief.<\/p>\n
 –V.TAi\\’\u00a7iIAI'<~r.e%at.ered appearance and filed its statement of<\/p>\n
objections.'.ioi_1_i'2t).1.2006 and denied that it had decided to<\/p>\n
V._terrninete":. the contract or to invoke the bank guarantees.<\/p>\n
 by notice dated 10.3.2006 the petitioner's contract<\/p>\n
i  .i _._was terminated and the bank guarantees were encashed.<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
It is contended that thereafter NHAI has awarded the
\nbalance works of the Project to :1 third–party, namely, the<\/p>\n
seventh respondent, for a consideration of Rs.lO3 crore,”-.._\u00a5t is<\/p>\n
the petitioner’s case that it had Completed 43% <\/p>\n
works. The value of the remaining was about,,Ris;4.9;7_i2~ crore.~i _ i’<\/p>\n
But NHAI having awarded the remainingin\/iorlt’atitheiexorbiitlapnti’<\/p>\n
sum as stated above seeks to hold thel”petit_ionetr”l’iable for the <\/p>\n
difference of the value of the rerii’ai..inin_g worksi_i(Rs.llE03 crore
\nless Rs.49.72 crore). It is on,t’i–3_is  development that the
\nsecond of the above_writ1petitio:ns.lis,tt7i.led;  2<\/p>\n
 S-.’n’ri .Kris’l1nan_\u00bbVent:gop’al, Senior Advocate appearing
\nfor the c.o1.ins_el f()1’lthe’petit.i_lone1′ contends as follows:<\/p>\n
 “the.maintainability of the writ petition, in the<\/p>\n
  of”‘a,n”a_rbi:tra.tion clause, under Clause 67 of the Agreement<\/p>\n
between _t,hedlVpai”ties, he would submit that a writ petition is<\/p>\n
V’-\u00bb.maintainable despite the existence of an arbitration clause as<\/p>\n
 _whatif.–‘is sought to be enforced is a fundamental right of the<\/p>\n
 V. ..,.petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
In that, the petitioner seeks to question the interpretation
\nsought to be placed by NHAI on ciause. 52.2 of the contract.
\nThe same is patently unfair and arbitrary. Further, an Arbitral<\/p>\n
Tribunal is fettered by the terms 01′ the contract. It wouid._be<\/p>\n
beyond its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the.\u00a7i_:piet’itio–i1e;*-‘.sf’.<\/p>\n
contention. The clause requires to _be..read dowirfto. render it <\/p>\n
reasonabie and fair and render justice tothe ip~etii’ti_oneir.-it”=-The<\/p>\n
contract being a standard forni a:o’n.1V_ract has a _pu’b1i’e.;’c’iiaracter, ” V<\/p>\n
in so far as it is applied t()p.*.\u00a7i’)”11ti\u00a71.”.itii(‘)’1’r.S_’ engag’eld\u00ab’oy NHAI
\nthrough the length and it>;:eaditiie:o’f  its acclaimed<\/p>\n
Golden; Q~uadi’i_later.al’t  ‘ and therefore, is yet another<\/p>\n
circumstariceilwyhich iwoulyd_;e\u00bb:raake these proceedings the most<\/p>\n
 a ire riate rem_ed*<,,i__Hev laces reliance on several authorities in
\n    J …. ..\n<\/p>\n
 V th is repg’ardi he.:e”u–nder:\n<\/p>\n
(.ciz)_.il!i”)iF.Q;i’iis:S{ii1Ih Khan’ vs. Ram f~;g.znehi Sing\/1, (I971}3 SCC<\/p>\n
864,   <\/p>\n
 AISL InIern.ari0n.czl I.im:’rea’ i-us’. Export’ Credit Guarantee<\/p>\n
C{)I'[){)f\u00a3ZTi()f1 Qflrzdia Limited, (2\u20ac)04)3 SCC 553<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
(c) Shri1ekl’i.(z Vz’c1yc1rr\/Ii (Kmm\ufb02 us’. State of UP. (1991)! SCC
\n212<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
(d) LIC oflndicz vs. C onsumer Edmminrz and Researclz egztre,<\/p>\n
(1995)5 SCC 482<\/p>\n
(6) Urrar Pradesh State Bridge Cwzsrrucrzion C0%y?)rra:if}rz  <\/p>\n
B.D.\/\u00abL and Others, 2005(5) I<ar.LJ 112- i_ <\/p>\n
Srimauli Builders vs. Ban (:1()r\u00a32 "WaIer'..';.\u00a7ii";i'v '.cii'1d
\n, .3 ._ , P1" \u00ab . .\n<\/p>\n
Sewerage Board and or\/’zers, (‘6)KczriLiI\n<\/p>\n
(g) S\/1eIty’s Cor1_9truc’ti0i:i.’_:C.<)rn;–ian;'.i rishna Bhagya Jala
\nNigam Limited and c3tbe.!<t,_  \u00a72_5;i2,f2(51a,\u00e9i;=; <\/p>\n
Ityis Contefid\u00e9dofth.at"the"—question to be addressed by this<\/p>\n
Court is iinrii.t_ed. in' scopenaiid does not involve any disputed<\/p>\n
    …..\n<\/p>\n
V   “‘It’isi’iiiotiiii-‘dispute that the expansioii of the scope of<\/p>\n
wo1’]$ii11cre\u00a3iSegi’eEmost 30 times in the quantum of excavation of<\/p>\n
ii”\u00bb~’\u00ab\u00ab___i’~hard 1’o’CkV__ii111d by 5% times in the case of ordinary rock. Citing<\/p>\n
 _i’the–j.u_:igment of the Supreme Court in S.Harcharan .vs. Uniorz<\/p>\n
  -sgfiilndia ((1990) 4 SCC 647), which was a case concerning a<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
26<\/span>
\nconstruction contract, involving additional work of excavating
\nhard r0ck~it was held that a contractor could not be held liable<\/p>\n
to execute the additional quantity of the tendered iternsat the<\/p>\n
tender rates to an unlimited extent and that it was perr_1fn’sls’ihl’elto<\/p>\n
read into the contract a deviation limit, 20% inll”t.hatfciase;  <\/p>\n
excess of which the contractor wwald  en\u00abtitl\u00a5ed.__torevisedllr<\/p>\n
I’Elt\u20acS .\n<\/p>\n
It is also found as a fact thatv:l\u00a7’\\’HAl  ifaiiledltg) indicate<\/p>\n
for over two years, the revised ratcsi.._w\u00bbhile assuring it of the<\/p>\n
same — only to fix the sanie_arbitra1’il\u00bby a’n_d’eiqua’ily arbitrarily to<\/p>\n
have wl’ithdr21w.1l1″the..3ame”oTn'”the ‘ground that the petitioner was<\/p>\n
not even entitled to.  It is the interpretation of clause<\/p>\n
 ‘lofithe contr’Aactib.y. N HA1, in the face of the circumstances<\/p>\n
 _ n’igh’ligh’t.ed requires to be addreased by this Court.<\/p>\n
‘  It is ‘contended that Clause 52.12 of the General conditions<\/p>\n
Wof the ct)_nti’act reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
52.2 Provided that if the nature or amount of
\nany varied work relative to the nature or amount of<\/p>\n
the whole of the works or to am’ part thereof, is such<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
that, in the opinion of the Engineer . the rate or price<\/p>\n
contained in the contract for any item of the works ,<\/p>\n
is, by reason of such varied work, rendered<\/p>\n
inappropriate or lr121pp1iCabl<:. then, after duet"<\/p>\n
consultation by the Engineer with the Employe&15..'<1_l:dh''''if. ''<\/p>\n
the Contractor, a suitable rate or price shall be.–agree;;l" –  <\/p>\n
upon between the Engineer and lhyeAACbontra<.;'to'r'." <\/p>\n
event of disagreement the E1igineeii,,sh.al'l.yy H<\/p>\n
other rate or price as is, in his op__ini'on, app'ropri'ate<\/p>\n
and shall notify the C0nV[l'E1,(\u00e9'f\u20ac'5~|Vf' acco1't1__ingly, <\/p>\n
copy to the Employer. Unti_l"':;.u_ch._Vtime,hasrates for
\nprices are agreed  fixed  , th_e._Engineer shall
\ndetermine the provisionalVrat'es'or  enable on-<\/p>\n
account payrnents t\u00a7ibeiinciudet1Vi'i.n c-ert\u00a7t'icate.s issued<\/p>\n
in accor'dt:.i–1Vce yVith'Cla'.\u00a3l_S\u20ac–_6Q.<\/p>\n
'–Provided':_i'al_s'o' –.t_ha\u00bbt.41;~o varied work. instructed to<\/p>\n
be doneby the Ei1_gine~er pursuant to Clause 53 shall<\/p>\n
 beiyztlueciliulntfer Snb–clause 52.1 or under this Subw<\/p>\n
"unless within 14 days of the date of such<\/p>\n
V*in:s'tr_uCtionhand, other than in the case of omitted<\/p>\n
 wotl{,'s:l\u00a7;ei9oi'e the commencement of the varied work,<\/p>\n
tioticeshall have been given either:\n<\/p>\n
a) by the Contractor or to the Engineer of his
\nintention to claim extra payment or a varied<\/p>\n
rate or price, or<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
l9<\/p>\n
oi’ the quantity set out in the Bill of Quantities<\/p>\n
by more than 25 per cent <
\nFrom a reading of the second proviso it should be<\/p>\n
understood that it would include a claim to varied rate_s.ca~s_es<\/p>\n
where the additional work amounts to more than  <\/p>\n
contract price and not only in cases where_ the .iltern"inljVthe"Bill  ll<\/p>\n
Quantities as originally estimated is'i.ess._than  -. To <\/p>\n
the argument of NHAI W()Ltlt:l'-vll)lg:.t\u00a7"..gt0 p.lac.e'a._  all<\/p>\n
willful or even an inadver.tent .r1nde:%estii"nation of"t'z1e scope of
\nwork being foisted on the eontifacror detriment. in the<\/p>\n
presentacase, therefisi  on record to indicate that the<\/p>\n
Detailed Project Regaort:s('heirei11after referred to  'DPR', for<\/p>\n
  not finaiised before the invitation for bids in May<\/p>\n
  did not provide for the hugely expanded<\/p>\n
worl\u00e9 at thelhiiilllsection.\n<\/p>\n
lt,__is also contended that the petitioner had furnished a<\/p>\n
it =total..oi’ seven bank guarantees during the performance of the<\/p>\n
 “~~c–ontract. Of these, five bank guarantees were issued by<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent No.5 \u00bb bank. These hank guarantees are in the
\nstandard format and were executed in favour of the chairman,<\/p>\n
NI-IAI and could be invoked by him alone. But h0we.”vei’:;:<\u00ab.:vi\/'ere<\/p>\n
invoked by an officer other than the Chairman  '<\/p>\n
permissible. Reliance is placed oi:—ifi'iz:-cfii.vti?zar1_yCa?ijisIm+:?'iir)i:.<\/p>\n
C0.LId. vs. State 0fBih.ar. [(1999)    \u00bbre\u00abgaiid.*<\/p>\n
It is contended that more'"'i\u00abrhpo.rtantiy.._itheisinvtocation of V<\/p>\n
the bank guarantees was\u00a2.1ea1'iyiiani';:-CI iiittyriminaliicontempt of
\nthis Court. Elaboratihg f1_;:rt'i~,e_;-,   e'o.nite.hd_ed that this court
\nhad issued em{_.ei'g\u00a7?;ntV ;i.oiticeoh  petit–io'n. The respondent
\nhavihg7.a,e11te'red"iia\u00a7peaziai'1ce'"-had" smteti in its statement of<\/p>\n
objectionsiitiatediii2(i.'.\u00a7.2\u20ac)iio, that it had no intention of<\/p>\n
-V V. ‘_ tern1i’natiii’1g the CiOI1t1f;1_(_.’,\u00a3vO:’ invoking the bank guarantees.<\/p>\n
    matter was pending consideration by this<\/p>\n
 th.e’ii’ii’i”_sti respondent has, by design, invoked the above<\/p>\n
igbank guaiitantees on 10.3.2006, a Friday, thereby ensuring that<\/p>\n
,,_”‘_the_i\ufb01etitioner could not approach this Court till 13.3.2006.<\/p>\n
it  .. __I:ibwever, on 14.3.2006, when the mattei- was being considered<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
the said contract and to award the xame to the petitioner, who
\nundertakes to complete the same for a consideration-\u00abj(>f:iRS:95<\/p>\n
CFOFG.\n<\/p>\n
5. On. the other hand, Shri Uti;;:y’a Hollaji  ii<\/p>\n
appearing for the counsel for theiKreS;i1ondent_–\u00bbi c’o\u00bb!1tend_S’–~taS’~_<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
N HA1 has been
\nAuthority of   it;”~~iiv\u00a7ureisiaonsible for the
\ndevelopment,”    of the National
\nHighwayra  hand is a part of the
\n an-ica the North–South and East-\n<\/p>\n
West Corri’dQ_i’ Proijectg  Golden Quadrilateral Project aims<\/p>\n
  to Connect the fou’1*m.e.t.17opoIitan cit\u00e9trs, namely, Delhi, Calcutta,<\/p>\n
 iiw.~’Iurn13_a’i..4ar:d ‘Cihe.11nai. The North~.’j\u00a7outh Corridor Project aims<\/p>\n
to’ ,_connect’t:i1.:\u00a7\u20acashmir to K3..!1yElkii\u00a711E1i’i and the East-West<\/p>\n
V’-.CorridorV__i’Project connects Siichar and Porbander. In this<\/p>\n
” .re*rrarti, the existinv hi hwa  are to he a raded. A section of
\n. (:2 .. 2: 3<\/p>\n
 \/,_H1h:e road connecting Mumbai and Chennai passes through<\/p>\n
\u00a3<\/p>\n
23<\/span>
\nChitraduiga and work for one of the packages was entrusted to
\nthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
NHAI has engaged respondent No.2 as a Supervising<\/p>\n
Consultant Engineer to supervise the quality of the worhand<\/p>\n
the operation of the Contract as prescribed in Ciat_1se”2;6_~<\/p>\n
Contract and acts impa.rtia1I_y insofar  the ob’r1’gati.on’s.: of the <\/p>\n
petitioner and NHAI are concerned.\n<\/p>\n
It is contended that theii_ai’iegatio’i’i having = L’<\/p>\n
sought to change the design Sprf3\u20acii:iiiC\u00a31ti0i’i fro.r11=4..1aning to 6<\/p>\n
ianing in the year 2002 ini'[i’\u00a7’i}i’i’~i,\u00a7’E’\u00a73E3. eittc..V;\u00bb.iS\u00b0 denied as being a<\/p>\n
change’..cont’em_ip’iatedi’ifoi”i’-the first time. It is contended that<\/p>\n
even du1_~1n’g.the,. teridesfiiigfstzige, it was anticipated that rock<\/p>\n
  WO11i’:3. beencountere.d_..and accordingiy items for ordinary rock<\/p>\n
 and har”ct.._ro.\ufb01:i]<; were included in the Bit? of Quantities. However,<\/p>\n
itvvas a.1Sot'i:–}es\u00a7”
\nFurther, the petitioitigr l1.:i<:l"e.i\u20ac Sub\u00a7Contractor to
\ncarry out the said work with'oL_tt  ..l-V'-1'ior sanction of<\/p>\n
the second '3'espoin;l'\u00a7:nAt'wih'ieVh"'i-s a cleai' violation of the contract.<\/p>\n
It is also to" noticed't.liat_:_t.ne petitloner had engaged the Sub\u00bb<\/p>\n
  Conizractor to exeeute.___t.he works at it rate much less than agreed<\/p>\n
  profiting trom the execution of the work<\/p>\n
andthe falsehclaim of having inctm-ed losses to the extent of<\/p>\n
"-.Rs.2O (role and the impasse having: resulted in a <:lischa1'ge of<\/p>\n
 its .obligation under the contract to ggierform etc., is false to the<\/p>\n
i  V. …l<.riowleclge of the petitioner. The falsity of the claim of the<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner is also evident from the tact that the petitioner has
\napproached the second respondent my a varied rate, E9 months<\/p>\n
after accepting the Variation Ordea: The Consultant Engiiieer<\/p>\n
had by oversight issued a Var’:-ation Order <\/p>\n
27.7.2004. But soon after realising the. e_rror,_7iiariaely.ltl1a_t.the_ K”<\/p>\n
Variation did not qualify for a vai”ied’=i”2ttei_i <\/p>\n
the particular item was less thttnt_VLilf2t’5’\u00a7?: of the covntract.i}5r’ice’i the ”<\/p>\n
Variation order was withtli*ztw=ni..r”‘A–.d’i–s;5tate haying been raised
\nby the petitioner before  a detailed<\/p>\n
deliberation,  stand as the<\/p>\n
petitionet’ s2 diseiititlc  o’rde:r dated 24. 3.2005.<\/p>\n
It is lconiteynded that’ initlie meanwhile, the rate of progress<\/p>\n
 i_ of e’X3ecut_Li’on_ of the \u00abworlts, which had remained Very slow npto<\/p>\n
 t;teter~i.orated further and all work had practically<\/p>\n
stophed vhylliiifaiceniber 2(.)(‘)4. in =-;pit.e of review committee<\/p>\n
“~..meetin’gsV__7and other attempts to expedite the work, the total<\/p>\n
A’ ptogtjess achieved over a period of eleven months from January<\/p>\n
\u00e9<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
to November 2005 was works of only R5387 lakh which was
\nwholly unsatisfactory.\n<\/p>\n
It is stated that the Consult-mat Engineer had therefore<\/p>\n
recommended termination of the contract. But N4HdA-Io_’iihas<\/p>\n
afforded time to the petitioner to maite further ei’forfs to .<\/p>\n
the required progress. The petitione2’_ha.v.ing rniiseralaly i’aa1\u00a2a to id id<\/p>\n
perform its part of the contiacu”NH_}=\\i( was_:”jiistifie_d\u00ab._:i’1i..<\/p>\n
terminating the contract. The\u00ab.._:ai.legation ‘t-hat: Vl\\l:}3I’}Xl has ‘V<\/p>\n
fraudulently invoked i3E1El}\u20ac_gL1\u00a3ii?alllt(‘c3:S’ ahd. that the same were
\nacts which amount to criiuilnai i’coi:iem.oticourt is strongly<\/p>\n
refutedviand it —deinm:sti’ated that this Court had<\/p>\n
not thoughti..i_t fit to ;g:f;’1’iit.::\u00a5’iiiy* interim order of stay of such<\/p>\n
  invocation in thefii*::t…i.:ista11ce. N}–EA} has hence proceeded to<\/p>\n
‘yiiievoke ‘t’he”s,arrie”–after due notice. The bank guarantees were<\/p>\n
unconditio.ii’ai-.V_ahd hence NH.-‘\u00bb\\l’ was within its right to invoke<\/p>\n
Wthe sariaef There is no giouiitl lTii:e:.,iC out to demoiis\ufb01ate that<\/p>\n
  has Committed contempt of C’oui*t.\n<\/p>\n
Z<\/p>\n
Shri Holla Places reliance on :1 large number of
\nauthorities to support the contention\u00bb: tliat the writ petition is not
\nmaintainabie hzwiiig regard to the mntractual relationship and<\/p>\n
the dispute pertaining to the terms of contract.<\/p>\n
In the above background, the circumstance: V’<\/p>\n
has terminated the contract with the pe’titi~oner7_4is   dispiztef<\/p>\n
If it is alleged that the terrninzition \\>.’z1is\u00ab._iE’le_gial andsnot. j1:1stifiedi,i’~.<\/p>\n
the remedy in respect of such i1i*1’il;ire1″2il teirr:_ir1’at.i’on\u00b0is to seek
\ndamages.\n<\/p>\n
6. The Senior Advoe’:.ite  K3t’iSVll’13i1t1.. Venugopai does<\/p>\n
not disputerthatVthe:”corr:i’\u00e9iet__pit<)Vides for settlement of disputes<\/p>\n
by t-ecourse_4_ito, 2irbitratio_i?;'. tit't(;lL-IE' the provisions of the<\/p>\n
 ginci Conei..l.iati<)n Act, 2996. Therefore, the oniy<\/p>\n
 iground 0ni'Wif1vi\u00a7;li'*.th6 present petition is sought to be sustained<\/p>\n
ar1d,__the iiinitetliilqiiestirin that may be relevant is whether the<\/p>\n
 -v.__i’-terior (if_C’iause 52.2 of the General Conditions of Contract<\/p>\n
 e:i’so’ui_dAii.–ibe addressed by this COLIFL as it is the case of the<\/p>\n
 vi..peititione1* that the interpretation smigiit to be pieced on the<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
same by NH\/Xi and duly (3E1(l()E’S\u20act’i by the DAB and a plain
\nreading of the same wouid not enabie the Arbitral Tribunal, that<\/p>\n
may be called upon to adjtitiieate any claim, to go beyond the<\/p>\n
letter of the clause. .It is hence sotagght to be etintenderliltaijvinig<\/p>\n
regard to the circumstance that the second prov’i’so to-.Clat1se_f <\/p>\n
52.2 above, ought to be understood to inelt1:3.ez_a <:'iai_r"ri–_to_Wa'rds"\u00ab<\/p>\n
Varied rates in cases where aiiiy a:idit–ion*al worl{.s.Aa'ni'oL1nt to <\/p>\n
more than 2% of the ctintraez prixtit:-:_'f::::1tl not'-t.oi"be': restricted to
\ncases where the Bill of Q-1,1ahtiti–\u00a5:s  Vios<is__g;i,:ially estimated is less<\/p>\n
than 2% of the contract pr-ice.::m(i.-isr11essVthis[.Court in exercise<\/p>\n
of its power' of,_;u'd.s_c-131~;:\u00a2vi_g.w ..reads down the above clause, any
\nCiairn raised in arbitration wfhaslti be an exercise in futility.<\/p>\n
 the ft1'rt.ht_3__i_'___ease oi' the petitioner that a Detailed<\/p>\n
 P.rojer.:t 'R_eport.fWhich is geiieraiiy the basis to arrive at the Bill<\/p>\n
0i"Qnantitiesi._a;nd more pzai"t.iet1lai'ly in quantifying the rock<\/p>\n
H,excava'tiVoin and the classification thereof in the present case, had<\/p>\n
 finalised before the %n\\–'it;stion for bids in May 2001<\/p>\n
 .. warid hence, it is contended that the Bill of Quantities did not<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
2:}
\nprovide for the hugely exp:-indcd w:’k at the hill section, which,<\/p>\n
of course, is denied by NHAI.\n<\/p>\n
It foilows that in pi’c’>eeeLiin;_f to address the tenor of<\/p>\n
Clause 52.2 a disputed question of fact as to whether the<\/p>\n
contract proceeded on  mixz”::pre:sem:.1tion of fact ar}d_tl1eli’efore”,V.<\/p>\n
the above clause could not be S{I’lC{l applied todeny the ;:1aimg i<\/p>\n
of the petitioner, requires adjLidicaiitirint he <\/p>\n
bound by an arbitration cEaL1se,,t’lie_ dictun_i or the,Supre_me eotilt <\/p>\n
in the case of ABL Intc\u00e9rncitt1’r2\ufb01z.5\/i Lfci. ..\u00a2iE’,\\<\/p>\n
eci,’1-i;i;\u00ab–; helid :\n<\/p>\n
“II is well knmm #21:!” If I\/’M parI1’e.s’ In (I dIZs’pLtfe<\/p>\n
‘  \/rad c1gnec2d’ Io .s’cezi’Ie? r1’m’r (]f.$'[):’:fc” by arbz’t1’aI;.’0n arid if<\/p>\n
 there is an. cIg1’een2ea;-:1 in Him rt-(<,wr"(1'. the Courts' will not<\/p>\n
permit r'ec'r2ur.s'e to rim-' olfm' m\u00abI1m'_\\' wz'II'z()uI invoking<\/p>\n
E<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
the r’er7recf}-* fay waif.’ ofr::*\u00a3>:’tt’rItr’tw. i.m1c*.s’..s’ 0fc,’0ur.s’c*, bolt’:
\nthe pczrrim In the z2’1′.s’\/Jim-* z.rgn=c-J an (mot\/zer !?Z()d\u00a3’ of<\/p>\n
dispute re.s’0[m’i(m. ”\n<\/p>\n
7. I_t is to be noticed f’mi’n decgided cases that clauses. akin<\/p>\n
to clause 52.2 and the interpretatim; thereof have been<\/p>\n
matter of disputes referred to arbitration and it  beenii’hieidi.i<\/p>\n
that the arbitrator would be x-vithin E”:-viis j{ii’isdie.ti0:n  ‘\u00a3i_e.\u00a2iidingi”\u00ab<\/p>\n
the proper interpretation to be ;;)}eeeti oii–siieh a elai1sev’gi’Ver1′. the <\/p>\n
circumstances of the case. (iS”s:t_i_’ _1\u20aca;n.}-mt\/ii ‘Ir2t\u00e9’;;rzar2′(2nal
\nConstructirm (P) Lrd., 1i’.’~.”);’.tV’:j!1f.(‘ of” ~–t._:”\u00bb9i9\u00a77t)_ J 1 SCC 645 and<\/p>\n
State (x?fV’i1PL(4ffI,_rI'{I:[)ii’ivi’;’VAIfttaFi’I’CZitf7?”-.f,J}\u00a7(1.i”_It.'(i\/ (2002) I S C C 26).
\nThe ‘rootriion’*of”the.  that the said clause unless<\/p>\n
interpreted  ._.ith’isCo-ui’t’i in il manner suggested by the<\/p>\n
‘V.__petitLi\u00e9}ne.r:would dise.ntit’le the pCEtI.\u00a7t)t1L’t’ to raise any claim in<\/p>\n
.ari3itratiQr1, forwa varied rate in respect of the enormous<\/p>\n
,\/ifiddi{iOA1ivEl,ii”‘~53vXC\u20ac{\\?;3;t’iOn work rerideretf. is a desperate contention<\/p>\n
seeking i.__iit’er,\u00a7’e1’iti(‘)i1 of this C(‘)iEl’L<\/p>\n
1,3<\/p>\n
This contention of the petitioner ought not to deter the<\/p>\n
petitioner from raising 21 dispute as to the iRE\u20acI’p1’\u20ac[21{i.()i”‘;.,bf the<\/p>\n
clause before the arbitrator and it Wtitiiii be for theitirhitrtitor  ‘<\/p>\n
the arbitrators to decide the sa:hg=:;'”‘t)’a:.z: “_.consitie’1*_3.tiori} of.’<\/p>\n
supporting factual data and ;1U\ufb0131″3Li;ifv}’i._'(ii’f\u00a73E.lI’}’1S{.\u00a31i)C\u20acS,3 VAKS”-.to’~_<\/p>\n
whether the remedy of arbitrz1tio”nuis bar1’ed._h’ytiitniittition is a
\nquestion that is neither 1*aiis’ed M 2.E’11’Vir~i’\\’it’\u00a2tf(%”{\u00a7~. here. i<\/p>\n
8. The question re;;_ltii’ is the. :\\$C(‘)”p.\u00a3f’Of;El~VC()I1trZtCtt1’E11 term<\/p>\n
and it cannotfbei}\u00e9se1id.. v:'{‘}1ti\u20acT_ ‘tuiyj’ t.gLies’t\u00e9on’ of violation of a<\/p>\n
funda1IVient\u00e9il”tAright 2i1\u00a7fVivses”‘i’o’t” eoi1_si'{1′{:i’titit)1i in the present writ
\npetitioh.7V *<\/p>\n
g9. _ Insofz1i”a’s”‘the- interloctatory uppiiwtions in I.A.H to<\/p>\n
 were to be tronsidereci are concerned, I.A.H is<\/p>\n
i”‘fi1ed_Vsieevi\u00e9i’1i,g Ehf:2v’CO)3SEi{H\u00a7i{}\u00a7E of’ committee at the behest of this<\/p>\n
Cotiit toeciiuantify the competisaticiu payab}_e for the additional<\/p>\n
 v”vo1′–k. rendered by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Z<\/p>\n
33<\/span><\/p>\n
i.A.N0.iii’ seeks at tiirectioia to NBA! for refund of
\nmonies received pursuant to invocation of bank guarantees
\nfurnished by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
I.A.N0.IV seeks issuance of sun motu p1’cieee(.iingsi*f0r<\/p>\n
contempt of court on E1CC()Li\u00a7’%E of invocation of bani; gtt\u00a31’1n\u00e9iiji1tees_Ti ~<\/p>\n
during the pendency of these ;_>i’oceeti\u00a7ngs.._  H  i<\/p>\n
I.A.N0.V seeks to l’L”S[i’i1il} theiigtespontients  te_6′ <\/p>\n
calling for counter gL1&r&l}{t’:f5~;  by ‘M\/’s..iS_’eut’hefn” Bank
\nBerhard, Kauia Lampur, iV.i..t_%i1i}-‘f~;”iitii.\\ -A
\ni.A.N’0.VI is filed sec’i~;ingi”Ci()iTeeti0~nj~<)f_i.the order dated<\/p>\n
17.3.2606. . e X<\/p>\n
In [ii1i't)i~;<3L'i in the absence of any interim<\/p>\n
 Q1"de1_jn.–'0f this Court, even if an inaccurate statement  made<\/p>\n
i  V.  the counsel as to whether n\ufb01gtat the same had been actually<\/p>\n
.49
\nDu<\/p>\n
encashed is not very imiim\u00e9eai. It may not amount to contempt
\nof court — but may be an aamieizlbie inadvertence by counsel.<\/p>\n
Hence the application is disn'i:\u00e9+;scc1.\n<\/p>\n
The interim order gl”ai\u00a7’}it:d on I.A.N0.V on  .<\/p>\n
having been continued by ihia C(>:3_:’L~  };\u00e9’Hd\u20acf\u20ac’d <\/p>\n
infructuous and hence, the said 2.1ppiiC’:iti(inS”2ii’e ii'<)f1<\/p>\n
In the result. the writ ]7i31vli'~i.,(_)a'f"IS"StE1I1.(iiL1. <\/p>\n
 f .. riv' *-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Dolomite Berhad vs National Highways Authority Of … on 14 October, 2009 Author: Anand Byrareddy TEE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 14″‘ DAY OF OCT0BE’}}:~~2(1Qi9__”__t:If ” BEFORE: THE I-ION’BLE MR. JUSTICE s\u00a7.NAN[\u00a7f’vI34’15I3iI4\u00a7R-1\u20ac’Dl3f .;_I WRIT PETITION No.2’5V778. OEI2nO5(GIM;tREs)t :1 C\/W WRIT PETITION No;:~I.7_os OF 200sIGM–nEs) WRIT PETITION No.2577s oI?II2Q()5\u00a3(;WI-IRES)’ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34076","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDolomite Berhad vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dolomite Berhad vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-19T04:40:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dolomite Berhad vs National Highways Authority Of … on 14 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-19T04:40:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4830,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Dolomite Berhad vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-19T04:40:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dolomite Berhad vs National Highways Authority Of … on 14 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dolomite Berhad vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dolomite Berhad vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-19T04:40:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dolomite Berhad vs National Highways Authority Of … on 14 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-19T04:40:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009"},"wordCount":4830,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009","name":"Dolomite Berhad vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-19T04:40:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dolomite-berhad-vs-national-highways-authority-of-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dolomite Berhad vs National Highways Authority Of … on 14 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34076","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34076"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34076\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34076"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34076"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34076"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}