THE BRAITHWAITE BURN AND JESSOP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED SANJUKTA DUTTA vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. — WPA /3307/2026

Case under No Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 07th April 2026.

CNR: WBCHCA0065172026

CASE DISPOSED

Next Hearing

11th February 2026

Filing Number

WPA /3193/2026

Filing Date

10-02-2026

Registration No

WPA /3307/2026

Registration Date

10-02-2026

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )

Sub-Category

Residuary ( 26 )

Judicial Branch

MANDAMUS SECTION

Decision Date

07th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED

Acts & Sections

NO ACT Section NA

Petitioner(s)

THE BRAITHWAITE BURN AND JESSOP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED SANJUKTA DUTTA

Respondent(s)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO

11-02-2026

NEW MOTION

27-03-2026

URGENT MOTION 1

25-03-2026

TO BE MENTIONED

12-02-2026

URGENT MOTION 1

Orders

07-04-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO

Summary The High Court at Calcutta disposed of a writ petition challenging the Union of India's 48-hour notice to Braithwaite Burn and Jessop Construction Company to commence work on a railway project or face contract termination. Finding disputed factual questions between the parties regarding work progress and site impediments (environmental clearances, utility relocations, encroachments), the court declined to adjudicate the contractual dispute in writ jurisdiction. Instead, it directed the parties to first attempt resolution through the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) under the contract's Clause 63.2, and if unsuccessful, proceed to arbitration as contractually mandated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The High Court at Calcutta disposed of a writ petition challenging the Union of India's 48-hour notice to Braithwaite Burn and Jessop Construction Company to commence work on a railway project or face contract termination. Finding disputed factual questions between the parties regarding work progress and site impediments (environmental clearances, utility relocations, encroachments), the court declined to adjudicate the contractual dispute in writ jurisdiction. Instead, it directed the parties to first attempt resolution through the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) under the contract's Clause 63.2, and if unsuccessful, proceed to arbitration as contractually mandated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case