Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 17 October, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010065262018
2025:GAU-AS:13969
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2123/2018
MRT SIGNALS LTD.
2, RAJA WOODMUNT STREET, 3RD FLOOR, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
RAILWAY, NEW DELHI
2:N. F. RAILWAYS
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
HAVING HIS OFFICE SITUATED AT MALIGAON
GUWAHATI.
3:THE DY. CHIEF SIGNAL AND TELECOM ENGINEER/CONSTRUCTION
AGARTALA AT MALIGAON
GUWAHATI
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Advocates for the petitioner(s) :Mr. A Goyal
Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. B Sarma
Standing Counsel,
Page No.# 2/4
NF Railways
Date of hearing & judgment :17.10.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Mr. A Goyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
Mr. B Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel, NF Railways appears on behalf of all
the respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by
the actions on the part of the respondent authorities in reducing the amount to
which the petitioner is entitled to for the contract which the petitioner had
completed with due satisfaction of the respondent authorities.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that as per the contract agreement,
the petitioner had to "Design, Manufacture, Supply of Solid State (Electronic)
Interlocking System, which included 530 numbers of Function/Bit and the price
for each individual Bit was fixed at Rs.51,950/- and, therefore, the total price on
account of supply of 530 numbers of Function/Bit was fixed at Rs.2,75,33,652/-.
4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Contract Agreement which
was entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent No.3, the
work had to be completed within 120 days from date of issuance of the letter of
Page No.# 3/4
acceptance and the value of the contract was fixed at Rs.6,16,37,725.34/-.
During execution of the project, it was found that as per the design approved by
the Office of the respondent No.3, there was an excess of 195 Function/Bit
Hardware System cater for Function/Bit of about 195 in numbers would be
required to complete the entire project as assessed by the respondent No.3/the
Site Engineer and accordingly the petitioner supplied the additional Hardware
System required to cater the additional functions of the Bit. In that view of the
matter, a Subsidiary Agreement was executed by the parties on 08.07.2016 and
in view of the Subsidiary Agreement, the original contract price which was fixed
at Rs.6,16,37,725.34/- was increased to Rs.8,40,05,226/-. The petitioner
received an amount of Rs.7,68,94,000/- and a balance amount of
Rs.71,00,000/- was pending.
5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent authorities, more
particularly, the respondent No.3 had finalised the dues of the petitioner at
Rs.7,64,52,665/- ex-parte and the petitioner was asked also to sign another
document accepting the ex-parte decision, which the petitioner refused and
approached this Court.
6. This Court duly takes note of that as per the terms and conditions entered
into by and between the petitioner and the respondents, there is an arbitration
agreement in Clause 34 of the terms and conditions of the contract, which
refers to Clause 63, 64.1 to 64.7 of the General Conditions of the Contract of the
NF Railway 1998 Edition, subject to any correction made prior to the opening of
the tender. Therefore, it is seen that the dispute in question is arbitrable in
Page No.# 4/4
nature.
7. This Court had heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the
parties and as it is the specific submission made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the said decision was taken ex-parte
without making the petitioner aware. It is the opinion of this Court that the
petitioner should be given an opportunity to submit a representation before the
respondent authorities, more particularly the respondent No.3, agitating the
grievance, insofar as, the alleged ex-parte, reconciliation of the accounts.
8. Mr. A. Goyal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that the same would be done within a period of 15 days from today.
9. Considering the above, this Court directs the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to
decide on the representation, if so submitted by the petitioner within
24.11.2025, within a period of 60(sixty) days from the date of submission of the
representation. It is the further opinion of this Court that if the petitioner is
aggrieved by the outcome of the decision in the representation, the petitioner
can take resort to Clause 34 of the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement.
10. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
