'Don't Choke The Court, Let It Breathe': Madhya Pradesh High Court In Writ Petition Filed Without Availing Alternative Remedy

While hearing a writ petition moved in a commercial dispute where the parties had entered into an agreement having an arbitration clause, the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday (December 11) said that court's do not interfere in matters where alternative remedies are available.

As the counsel for the petitioner said at least a show cause notice should have been issued to him by the respondent before his earnest money was forfeited, Justice Vishal Dhagat while hearing the matter orally said, “Don't choke the High Court, let it breathe.”

The matter pertained to a contractual dispute between the parties where an alternate remedy of Arbitration was available to the petitioner. He had however moved the High Court alleging that a show-cause notice was not issued to him before forfeiting his earnest money.

During the hearing the counsel for the petitioner submitted, “The earnest money of the petitioner has been forfeited by the respondents without issuing any show cause notice, violating the principles of natural justice alleging that the petitioner failed to maintain the road up to to 5 years”.

The high court at this stage orally said, “Ye kya aadesh hai? Jaiye aap arbitration ke liye (Please move for arbitration)".

The counsel relied upon a judgement of the High Court in which he said it had been held, that before forfeiting the earnest money, show-cause notice is must.

To which the court asked, “Kya order hai that you should file writ petition directly even if there is an arbitration clause?”

The court orally said, “Ye uthaiye saare grounds aap arbitrator ke samne (You can raise all these grounds before the arbitrator)".

After hearing the matter for some time the court while dictating its order said, “Petitioner has filed this petition against order dated 16.11.2024. By said order the earnest money deposited by the petitioner has said to been forfeited by Executive engineer, Public Works Department. Petitioner has entered into an agreement with the respondent with arbitration clause in it. Dispute has arisen between petitioner and respondent, therefore, petitioner is at liberty to pursue alternate remedy available to him in accordance with law. Court will not interfere in commercial transactions which have been entered between the parties where they are having alternate remedies. All issues shall remain open before the forum.”

Case Title: M/S Mahavir Infracon v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

WP 38248/2024