[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Kunal Structure (India) Pvt Ltd ... vs M P Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Indore ... on 17 March, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7204
1 WP-39606-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 39606 of 2025
M/S KUNAL STRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT LTD THROUGH DIRECTOR
KUNAL ARVINDBHAI DOMADIA
Versus
M P AUDYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM INDORE LTD. PRESENTLY
KNOWN AS M P INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Yatin Oza - Senior Advocate with Shri Stallone Shyamlal, Shri
Piyush Shrivastava and Shri Vishwas Shah - Advocates for the petitioner.
Shri Manu Maheshwari - Advocate for the respondents No. 1 & 2.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India against the action of the respondents No.1 & 2 for invocation of the
Performance Bank Guarantee bearing No.43510IGL0000617 of Union Bank
of India for an amount of Rs.12,49,20,000/-, which presently stands extended
till 20.10.2025 as well as to release the said bank guarantee to the petitioner
immediately as the mandated period of maintaining this bank guarantee,
which was till 03.02.2025 as per express terms and conditions of the contract
agreement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7204
2 WP-39606-2025
02. We asked counsel for the respondent that whether the matter may
be disposed of in the light of the Clause 12 of the Contract while continuing
the interim relief passed by this Court. Counsel for the respondent submits
that he has obtained necessary instructions and the matter may be disposed of
by prescribing time limit for the authorities and Tribunal. In view of the
aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of finally as under.
03. This Court, while issuing the notices on 09.10.2025 considering
the averments made in Para 31 of the petition, passed the following order:
Issue notice to the respondents on payment of PF by both modes within
3 working days. Notice be made returnable within 2 weeks.
Also heard on interim relief.
In view of the averments made in Para-31 of the petition i.e. "On
08.09.2025, the Petitioner once again requested the Respondent to release
the dues. The letter emphasised on completion of all pending work as per
the requirements put forth by the Respondent Authorities, further
highlighting that the completion of the 5-year maintenance period was on
03.11.2024. All work, including all maintenance-related works at the site,
including Sewage Treatment Plant- STP, is completed. It also mentions
that the electrical power supply for the STP has yet to be made available,
delaying testing and handover of the second STP unit. Despite the same,
dues are not released by the Respondent Authorities till date" , the
petitioner has make out a prima facie case for interim relief.
Till the next date of hearing, the Performance Bank Guarantee in
question be not encashed, subject to renewal time to time by the petitioner.
The petitioner shall inform the respondents about the renewal of the
Performance Bank Guarantee on or before 17.10.2025. It is hereby made
clear that if no information is sent/received from the side of the petitioner
about renewal of Performance Bank Guarantee, the respondents shall be at
liberty to encash this Bank Guarantee forthwith.
List on 10.11.2025.
04. The respondents filed the reply and in the reply an objection has
been taken that the Clause 12 of the Conditions of Contract provided for
dispute resolution system, the said clause reads as under:
12. Dispute resolution system
12.1- No dispute can be raised except before the competent authority as
defined in contract data in writing giving full description and grounds of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7204
3 WP-39606-2025
dispute. It is clarified that merely recording protest while accepting
measurement and/or payment shall not be taken as raising a dispute.
12.2 No dispute can be raised after 45 days of its first occurrence. Any
dispute raised after expiry of 45 days of its first occurrence shall not be
entertained and the employer shall not be liable for claims arising out of
such dispute.
12.3 The competent authority shall decide the matter within 45 days.
12.4 Appeal against the order of the Competent authority can be preferred
within 30 days to the Appellate authority as defined in the contract data.
The appellate authority shall decide the dispute within 45 days.
12.5 Appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority can be preferred
before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration tribunal constituted under the
Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam 1983.
12.6 The contractor shall have to continue execution of the works with due
diligence notwithstanding pendency of a dispute before any authority or
forum.
05. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the abovementioned Clause 12, we deem it expedient to
dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise a dispute under
the aforesaid Clause 12 within 15 days from today. Considering the nature of
the dispute and the interim order passed by this Court, we direct that the
Competent Authority shall decide the dispute within a period of 45 days on
merit in accordance with the law as envisaged under the said clause. The
petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournment before the Competent
Authority. If the appeal is filed against the said order as per Clause 12, the
Appellate Authority shall also decide the appeal in accordance with the law
expeditiously within a period of 45 days as provided under Clause 12.4. In
the appeal also, the parties shall not seek unnecessary adjournment.
06. Counsel for the respondent submitted that in case, if the dispute is
referred to the M.P. Madhyastham Tribunal under M.P. Madhyastham
Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, the final hearing of the matter may take time,
in such situation, continuation of the interim order may prejudice the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7204
4 WP-39606-2025
respondents in the writ petition.
07. Considering the aforesaid, in case, if the dispute travels to the
Madhyastham Adhikaran, we request the learned Tribunal to decide the
matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 2 months
from the date of filing of the dispute before the Tribunal. The parties are
directed not to seek unnecessary adjournment before the Tribunal if the
matter is referred there.
08. In view of the aforesaid, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
However, it is observed that the interim order dated 09.10.2025 granted by
this Court shall continue, till the matter is finally decided. It is made clear
that these directions are subject to the conduct of the parties that they will not
seek unnecessary adjournments either before the First Authority, First
Appellate Authority and before the Tribunal. In the event of failure of
cooperation or seeking unnecessary adjournment by either of the party, the
liberty is granted to either of the parties to approach this Court for
modification of the order. It is made clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case.
09. With the aforesaid, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Divyansh
