1 2025:CGHC:54803-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5878 of 2025 BSBK Private Limited, Through Its Sr. Vice President (Projects ) 4th Floor, Surya Treasure Island Mall Bhilai, District- Durg Chhattisgarh India - 490020 ... Petitioner versus Steel Authority of India Through Its Director Incharge, Bhilai Steel Plant Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg Chhattisgarh - 490001 --- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Khilendra Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Kashif Shaqeel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11.11.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 Declare the Respondent's actions as arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.; 10.2 Quash and set aside the actions of the AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.11.11 18:08:33 +0530 2 Respondent whereby the SD was forfeited, LD imposed, and penalty deducted without due process; 10.3 Direct the Respondent to refund the SD, LD and Penalty amounts wrongfully withheld, along with restitution of the actual financial cost incurred due to delayed payments by the Respondent, as per calculation sheet (ANNEXURE P-29); 10.4 Direct the Respondent to compensate the Petitioner towards litigation expenses incurred in pursuing the present proceedings, arising solely from the Respondent's arbitrary arid unjustified withholding of dues and imposition of penalties; and 10.5 Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice, be passed in favour of the Petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the arbitrary, unreasonable and unjustified forfeiture of security deposit amounting to INR 3,40,86,163/- (Indian Rupees Three Crore Forty Lakh Eighty Six Thousand One Hundred Sixty Three Only) ("SD"); arbitrary and unreasonable levy of liquidated damages to the tune of INR 77,72,062/- (Indian Rupees Seventy Seven Lakh Seventy Two Thousand Sixty Two Only) ("LD"), and arbitrary imposition of a penalty of INR 1,61,61,420/- (Indian Rupees One Crore Sixty One Lakh Sixty One Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Only) ("Penalty") by the Steel Authority of India Limited/Bhilai Steel Plant/respondent in relation to the 3 Installation & Operation of 1.2 MTPA Through-Put Localized Slime Beneficiation Unit for treating the stacked/De-silted Material (Iron Ore Slime) on a conversion cost basis at Dalli Mechanised Mines/Project. Learned counsel submits that the arbitrary imposition of LD to the tune of INR 77,72,062/- is contrary to clause 10(G) of the SCC, which exempts LD for delays attributable to the respondent or arising from force majeure events. The delays were caused by factors e.g. delay in site handover, power and water supply interruptions, restricted operational approvals, and the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, etc.. Learned counsel further submits that the arbitrary forfeiture of SD amounting to INR 3,40,86,163/- is in violation of clause 10(I) of the SCC, which permits forfeiture only upon non-completion after one year of extension and subject to termination. No such termination was issued; rather, the Agreement culminated in issuance of FAC and FDS, evidencing satisfactory performance. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under the Arbitration Clause. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 4 5. The matter relates to forfeiture of security deposit amount and imposition of penalty in relation to the Installation & Operation of 1.2 MTPA Through-Put Localized Slime Beneficiation Unit for treating the stacked/De-silted Material (Iron Ore Slime) on a conversion cost basis at Dalli Mechanised Mines/Project. From bare perusal of the pleadings and documents appended with the petition, the subject matter contains an arbitration clause. For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote arbitration clause of the contract, which reads thus : Arbitration Clause 32: Whenever any differences or disputes arises between the Company on the one hand and any of the members or their heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns interest touching the true intent or construction or touching anything then or thereafter done, executed, committed or suffered in pursuance of these presents or of the statues or touching any breach or otherwise relating to the premises or to any affairs of the Company every such difference or dispute shall be referred to the decision of any arbitrator to be appointed by the parties to the dispute or in difference, or if they cannot agree upon a single arbitrator to the decision of two arbitrators, of whom one shall be appointed by each of the parties to the dispute or in difference 5 such arbitration will be governed by the laws for the time being in force." 6. On bare perusal of the material available on record, it is manifest that there is arbitration clause which categorically provides that any disputes or differences between the Company and any member (or their heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns) concerning the interpretation of the company’s documents, actions taken under them, or any company affairs shall be resolved through arbitration. The arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the laws in force at the time. 7. In view of the arbitration Clause 32 embedded in the contract, which provides a comprehensive and statutorily recognized dispute resolution, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has an effective, adequate, and efficacious alternative remedy available. 8. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a remedy is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily be exercised. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and Others v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 held that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternate remedy. 10. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care 6 Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed. 11. In light of the above facts and settled legal position, this Court finds no ground to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under Clause 32 of the contract, if so advised. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep