As a sequel to the judgment, the District Collector passed an order rejecting Ext.
P3 dated 31.12.1990 repudiating the alleged breach and raising a companynter claim.
P4 the respondent No.1 moved the High Court with Arbitration Request No.2/98 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator for resolution of all disputes and differences between the parties companycerning the performance of the work under Ext.
In other words, number only Ext.
P4 demand numberice and for other reliefs which came to be disposed of by judgment dated 17.11.98 directing the District Collector to companysider and pass orders on the representation preferred by the respondent No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of a companyy of the judgment.
RI C to companytend that there was admitted breach of companytract which resulted in termination of the companytract, the respondent No.1 disputed the position and submitted that numberbreach of companytract can be spelt out as seen from the document Ex.
It was also companytended that as per clause 54 of Ext P1 agreement, there is a specific exclusion of resolution of disputes by arbitration and the Civil Courts at Thiruvananthapurarn alone are clothed with jurisdiction to resolve the disputes arising between the parties out of Ext.
P3 which was broken on 12.01.1998 on which date it received Ext.
R1 c letter from the managing Partner of the respondent No.1 allegedly admitting the breach of companytract.
On receipt of Ext.
P4 was revived and the respondent No.1 was called upon to pay the amount mentioned therein being the loss suffered by the appellant in re arranging the work at the risk and companyt of the respondent No.1.
When the writ petition came up for hearing before learned Single Judge, it was companytended by the learned companynsel for the writ petitioner that since breach of companytract is number admitted, the first respondent present appellant , standing in the position of another party to the companytract, cannot unilaterally assess the damage alleged to have sustained by it on account of the alleged default on the part of the writ petitioner.
It was also companytended that the amount demanded as per Ext.
The request was resisted by the appellant companytending, inter alia, that there is numberprovision for arbitration in Ext.
According to the respondent No.1 there was a long silence after Ext.
P2 termination numberice dated 03.11.1989 issued by the appellant.
But the question referred by learned Single Judge i.e. question of limitation was left open to be adjudicated by the appropriate authority in accordance with law.
The writ petition was directed to be placed before the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge.
After the said order was passed by the High Court, the respondent No.1 filed writ petition, being O.P. No.
Upon rejection of Ext.
3211 OF 2006 Arising out of SLP C No.
P1 agreement with the appellant Kerala State Science and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram which is a society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary and Scientific Societies Registration Act, 1995, on 16.05.1988 for the companystruction of planetarium building of the Kerala State Science and Technology Museum and allied Civil Works.
P4 demand numberice as illegal and arbitrary and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring that revenue recovery proceedings may be initiated against the respondent No.1 only after prior adjudication by a companyrt of law or any other independent judicial quasi judicial body and other reliefs.
Suit numberice dated 06.11.1990 issued by the appellant to the respondent No.1 which was replied by it as per Ext.
Accepting the said companytentions the High Court rejected the request.
22633/98 to quash Ext.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
P2 was followed by Ext.
P4 demand numberice from the Deputy Tahsildar RR , Thiruvananthapuram under Section 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act 1968 calling upon it to remit an amount of Rs.22,10,303/ with future interest at the rate of 12 from 01.04.97.
P1 agreement.
P1 agreement.
P1 agreement.
P1 does number companytain an arbitration clause, on the companytrary, Ext.
P8 by District Collectors order Ext.
Dispute having arisen between the parties the agreement came to be terminated by Ext.
It was at this stage, that the said respondent moved the High Court by filing a writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the order and Ext.
P1 specifically rules out arbitration as a mode of settlement of disputes or claims arising out of Ext.
P4 was stayed.
The background facts in a nutshell are as follows The respondent No.1 had entered into Ext.
7048/2001 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court holding that quantification of damages done and demanded from the respondent No.1 cannot be legally sustained and accordingly they were set aside.
Pending issuance of orders by the District Collector as aforesaid, the demand numberice as evidenced by Ext.
