https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462457 Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable in a contractual dispute despite arbitration and other alternate remedies because the challenge involved undisputed facts and alleged arbitrary State action. The contract was construed to keep the defect liability period at two years; Clause 29 extended only the validity of the performance security for three months beyond that period and did not enlarge the defect liability period itself. On that reading, withholding and adjusting the performance security after expiry of the defect liability period was unjustified and arbitrary. The petitioner was therefore entitled to refund of the security, after adjustment of amounts already paid, with interest for wrongful retention. en-us Tue, 05 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jun 2025 22:02:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462457 Writ jurisdiction was held maintainable in a contractual dispute despite arbitration and other alternate remedies because the challenge involved undisputed facts and alleged arbitrary State action. The contract was construed to keep the defect liability period at two years; Clause 29 extended only the validity of the performance security for three months beyond that period and did not enlarge the defect liability period itself. On that reading, withholding and adjusting the performance security after expiry of the defect liability period was unjustified and arbitrary. The petitioner was therefore entitled to refund of the security, after adjustment of amounts already paid, with interest for wrongful retention. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462457