'Court litigation is not a luxury:' HC applies force majeure to extend contract

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: Only because there is scope for arbitration, a petition before the High Court cannot be thrown away which would shake the people's confidence in the judicial process, the HC of Karnataka has said.

The HC bench of Krishna S Dixit partially allowed a petition by a person with a twelve-year contract for managing the commercial space and parking space in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) commercial complexes in Hassan.

Two years of the contract were wasted due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the contractor, based on force majeure, sought an extension of the contract by two years.

The KSRTC had however issued tenders for new contracts.

“No reasonable person would have treated the tenure of the contract as having come to an end on 31.1.2023 when obviously the period of pandemic ought to have added to the benefit of the Petitioner. Just for an askance, a worthy petition cannot be thrown away chanting the alternate remedy as the mantra,” the HC said in its judgement on a petition filed by one HN Pruthvinarayan.

The KSRTC counsel had argued that there was an ongoing arbitration on the issue and therefore the HC should not hear the petition. The HC however said that this would shake the faith of the people in the judiciary.

“One has to keep in mind no litigant comes to the Court with joy in heart. Court litigation is not a luxury; it costs in terms of time & money if not more. Turning away an injured litigant, based on some jurisprudential theory would shake the confidence of right-thinking people in the judicial process. That would not augur well to the public interest, in the long run,” it said.

Rejecting the argument of the counsel for the KSRTC, the HC said, “This court does not much cotton with the contention of learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Respondents that as a Thumb Rule, in contractual matters involving tender process, the examination of the issues cannot be undertaken. A host of factors enter the fray in invoking a broad proposition of the kind.”

However, the new tender process was already completed in respect of some of the properties. The HC therefore said that those services already not given on new contracts should be given to the old contractor after receiving a regulated fee.

“The premises that are already allotted to third parties under impugned e-Tender Notification shall not be disturbed by the Petitioner and the premises that are not so let out, shall be handed to the Petitioner immediately after he deposits with the second Respondent one year advance rent/license fee at the enhanced rate under the existing arrangement,” the HC said. (WP 2940/2023)