Disposed

M/S N. Kay Refractory Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2019WRIC/40698/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged holiday list order debarring it from future contracts via writ petition despite allegedly expired limitation. Court treated limitation rules as procedural, allowed four-week window for filing merit-based appeal by appellate authority, and directed no dismissal on delay grounds.

What did the court decide?

Court allowed four-week window for filing appeal to appellate authority which shall decide on merits without dismissal for delay.

M/S N. Kay Refractory Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40698 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S N. Kay Refractory Works Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Yogendra Kumar,A\Y0035\2012

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Upadhaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Yogendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Ankush Tandon, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

¶6

By menans of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.10.2019 passed by the Deputy General Manager (Contracts) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Mathura Refinary, Mathura whereby the petitioner is placed on holiday list for the period of two years and further has been debarred from entering into any contract with the Indian Oil Corporation.

¶7

At the very outset learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that under Clause-9 of the guidelines of the Holiday List of the vendor, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority within a period of one month and in the event any such appeal is filed, decision thereupon shall be taken by the competent authority within a period of 45.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the period of limitation has run out and, therefore, this Court may entertain this writ petition.

¶9

From the perusal of the provision, we find that in total 45 days are provided for disposal of appeal.

¶10

In our considered opinion these are all rule of proceudre and therefore, in the interest of justice we provide that in the event appeal is preferred by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall be decided on merits by the appellate authority in accordance with law and the petitioner's appeal shall not be dismissed on the ground of delay.

¶11

The order shall be reasoned and speaking order one.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.12.2019 Nadeem Ahmad

¶13

(Ajit Kumar,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)

M/S N. Kay Refractory Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S N. Kay Refractory Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Seth Vs Kanpur Devp. Authority and Others

M/S Lohia Brass Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

M/S. Lohia Brass Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Director of Industries Udyog Nid. and Ors.

Sudhir Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kavita Raj Gupta Vs Chairman Nagar Panchayat and 3 Others

Rajesh Sharma and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others