Disposed

M/S Singh Rice Mills v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2021WRIC/15398/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of a recovery citation and permission to run a rice mill. The court directed the petitioner to deposit half the remaining balance, submit a representation for amount adjustment within two weeks, and granted permission to run the mill upon mortgage of the deposited amount.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit half the balance amount and submit a representation for adjustment of the paid sum; permit to run the rice mill granted upon deposit.

M/S Singh Rice Mills Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15398 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Singh Rice Mills Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Chandra Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satya Nisth Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 4 & 5 and Sri Satya Nisth Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3.

¶6

Instant writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs :

¶7

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the recovery citation dated 21.09.2019 issued by respondent no. 4 and communicated by respondent no. 5.

¶8

II. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to recover the amount in pursuance of order dated 21.09.2019.

¶9

III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents permit to the petitioner for running rice mill and also restrain him to create undue hindrance in the functioning of rice miss.

¶10

IV. .........

¶11

V. .........."

¶12

For redressal of his grievance, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No. 41454 of 2014 which was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 11.8.2014 and the petitioner was directed to invoke the arbitration clause before the competent authority. In pursuance whereof, the petitioner had approached the Arbitrator, who had passed an award on 20.9.2017. As the petitioner was not agreed with the award he had again approached the Lucknow Bench of this Court by filing Misc. Bench No. 19988 of 2019, which was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 23.7.2019 directing the authority to consider the demand as made in the award. In compliance of the said order, the Co-operative Federation has issued a letter dated 27.8.2019 revising their claim and fixed the amount to the tune of Rs.19,55,970/- to be paid by the petitioner within a stipulated period. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.

¶13

2 & 3.

¶14

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.9,81,557/-, which has duly been accepted by the authority, hence, he is only liable to pay the balance amount of the revised calculation made on 27.8.2019.

¶15

However, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 has serious objection and submitted that the amount, which has been deposited by the petitioner, is only to be adjusted against the original claim of the Co-operative Federation and hence, the balance amount would remain to be Rs.19,55,970/-, which would be paid by the petitioner.

¶16

In view of the letter dated 30.8.2019, appended as annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit, since the petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.9,81,557/-, the same has to be adjusted against the revised amount of Rs.19,55,970/-.

¶17

In this view of the matter, in case the petitioner moves a representation for adjustment of the amount before the respondent no. 3 - District Manager, U.P. Co-operative Federation Limited, Sonbhadra within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of making of the representation. In the meantime, the petitioner shall deposit the half of the balance amount of Rs.9,74,413/-. On deposit of the amount, the respondents shall permit the petitioner to run the rice mill.

¶18

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.1.2021

¶20

M/S Singh Rice Mills v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Singh Rice Mills v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Dev Priya Products Private Limited Vs Union of India and 06 Others

Shamsul Arfin Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kishore Verma Vs District Magistrate and 2 Others

Zaheer Mehdi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others