# M/s D.H.B. Narendra Construction (J.V.) v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1346
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-14
- **Case number:** Act 1996 No. 2 of 2020
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-d-h-b-narendra-construction-j-v-v-union-of-india-ors-45540
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

1 All. Mr. Deepak Gupta Vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Noida & Ors.
1347
High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
same may be communicated accordingly.
Therefore, the above ground of the
assessee is not acceptable hence rejected."

29. The aforesaid finding of the
Revenue authority is unsustainable in law.
Approval under Section 151 of the I.T. Act,
1961, prior to initiation of proceedings under
Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 is a
jurisdictional pre-requisite. In the absence of
such approval the proceedings would fall to
the ground for want of jurisdiction. As such,
the assessee is fully entitled to a copy of the
order passed under section 151 of the I.T.
Act,
1961
and
correspondingly,
the
Assessing Officer is obliged to hand-over a
copy of the same, as and when the assessee
seeks for it.

30. There is no infirmity in the
reassessment proceedings and the same are
not liable to be interfered with.

31. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of finally.

32. Let a copy of this judgment and
order be transmitted by the Registry to the
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Uttar Pradesh, for circulation.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1346

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Appeal U/S 37 Of Arbitration And Conciliation
Act 1996 No. 2 of 2020

M/s D.H.B. Narendra Construction (J.V.)
 ...Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Manoj Kumar Tewari

Counsel for the Respondents:
-----

A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Section 37 - challenge to- application u/s
9 of the Act-restraining the Railways from
cancelling the work contract and from
forfeiting security-relief sought is not
granted-no evidence to establish that the
layout and design were not handed over to
the appellant in time-an injunction could
not be granted. (Para 4, 5 & 6)

As a first principle of law, in case of breach of a
contract which could be compensated in terms
of money, the relief for specific performance
could not be granted. Any injunction order
restraining
the
respondents
from
not
terminating the contract, extending the time
limit under which contract was to be executed
and
restraining
the
respondents
from
interfering in the execution of the work by the
appellant, is nothing but an order by the Court
directing specific performance of the contract
and that too on terms varied by it. such an
injunction could not be granted.

Appeal
U/S
37
Of
Arbitration
&
Conciliation Act 1996 dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

1. The instant appeal under Section
37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
1996 has been filed challenging the order
passed by District Judge, Ballia dated
18.12.2019, in Misc. Case No. 15 of 2019,
rejecting the application filed by the
appellant under Section 9 of the said Act.

2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the
instant appeal are that the appellant was
awarded a work order on 26.12.2018 by
the Railways for construction of platforms,
1348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
gate lodge, signal and station building,
foot-over bridge and other miscellaneous
works between Ballia and Karimuddinpur,
in connection with doubling work of the
railway line. The case of the appellant is
that the Railways did not provide design
for certain sectors to the appellant.
Consequently, the work could not be
started in those sectors. In other sectors,
where layout design was provided to the
appellant, it claims to have executed
substantial part of the work. The appellant
was served with a notice dated 24.7.2019,
requiring it to show cause as to why the
contract be not terminated for not being
able to execute it within time. The
appellant apprehending that in pursuance
of the said show cause notice, its contract
would be cancelled, approached the Court
under Section 9, seeking an injunction
restraining the Railways from cancelling
the work contract dated 26.12.2018, or
from forfeiting security tendered in respect
thereof and for a further direction that the
time under the contract be extended till
March
2020
and
the
Railways
be
restrained from interfering in the execution
of the remaining work by the appellant.

3. The Railways contested the
application and asserted that the appellant
had failed to abide by the terms of the
work order dated 26.12.2018. The work
layout was duly handed over to the
appellant on 1.11.2018, but the appellant
failed to execute the work. The work to be
executed is of public importance. Delay on
the part of the appellant in execution
thereof has resulted in escalation of the
cost. The appellant is not entitled to any
injunction.

4. The court below after considering
the pleadings and evidence led before it,
held that there was no evidence on record
to establish that the designs and layouts
were not handed over to the appellant in
time. It is also held that work under the
contract was of special significance and
any delay would have serious adverse
consequence. Thus, the appellant was not
found to be having any prima facie case in
its favour, nor balance of convenience lies
with it.

5.
Counsel
for
the
appellant
submitted that the appellant had a strong
prima facie case as the designs and layouts
were not made available to it in time.
Consequently the appellant cannot be held
liable for delay. It is also submitted that
the layout plan was handed over to the
appellant during monsoon period when
there was flood in the area where work
was to be executed. Consequently, there
was no default on the part of the appellant
and the show cause notice issued to the
appellant in relation to termination of
contract, is wholly illegal.

6. The relief which the appellant had
sought by filing application under Section
9 of the Act, if granted, would amount to
an order by Court specifically enforcing
the work contract between the parties. As a
first principle of law, in case of breach of a
contract which could be compensated in
terms of money, the relief for specific
performance could not be granted. Any
injunction
order
restraining
the
respondents from not terminating the
contract, extending the time limit under
which contract was to be executed and
restraining
the
respondents
from
interfering in the execution of the work by
the appellant, is nothing but an order by
the Court directing specific performance
of the contract and that too on terms varied
by it. In considered opinion of this Court,
such an injunction could not be granted.
1 All. M/s D.H.B. Narendra Construction (J.V.) Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1349

7. This Court therefore finds no
illegality in the impugned order to warrant
interference. The appeal lacks merit and is
dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1348

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Contempt No. 1153 of 2018

Santosh Kumar Maurya ...Applicant
Versus
Sri Alok Kumar ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ramesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Puneet Chandra

A. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section
2(b) - challenge to-wilful disobedience of
opposite
party
in
deciding
the
representation of the petitioner-chairman
decided the representation by a reasoned
and speaking order-hence, rejecting the
petitioner representation stating that he
was not an employee of Nagar Nigam at
the time of transfer from Firoz Gandhi
Unchahar Thermal Power Project. (Para 4)

It is ordinarily true that in contempt jurisdiction
a Judge cannot exercise writ jurisdiction. In
contempt jurisdiction either the Judge can
punish
for
contempt
or
discharge
the
contemnor.
However,
in
exceptional
circumstances, the court can issue directives in
contempt jurisdiction in order to secure the
ends of justice. (Para 2)

B. Doctrine of Stare decisis - In contempt
jurisdiction, a Judge cannot exercise a
writ jurisdiction and therefore, prayer of
the
petitioner
for
issuing
certain
directions is refused. Even otherwise,
under Article 141 of the Constitution, the
law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court being the law of the land is binding
on
all
Courts
and
Tribunals
and
authorities in India including this Court.
(Par 10)

Contempt Petition dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited: -

1. U.P. Nursing Home Association & Ors. Vs.
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava & Ors. (2004) (2)
UPLBEC 1404 para 7

2. Abida Begam Vs. RCEO (Supra)

3. Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing
Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited & Ors. (2014)

3 SCC 373 para 19

4. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Vs. Depinder Singh Dhesi
& Ors. (2019) 8 SCC 280 paras 16 and 17

5. J.S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar & Ors.
MANU/SC/0037/1997: (1996) 6 SCC 291

6. Dr. Ravindra Kumar Goel & Ors. Vs. St. of
U.P. & Anr. decided on 27.4.2004 in Special
Appeal No.320 of 2004

7. Narendra Singh Vs. St. of Punjab reported in
AIR 2014 SC 1839 (Supp.)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Manish Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted
by Shri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel
appearing for contemnor-opposite party.

2. Contention of learned counsel for
petitioner is that writ court vide order
dated 08.05.2017, permitted the petitioner
to make detailed representation to opposite
party
no.1
and
in
case
such
a
representation is made by the petitioner,