Petitioner challenged recovery certificates for deficient supply of custom rice under a state agreement. Court disposed of writ granting four-week stay to allow invocation of arbitration clause specified in the agreement.
Impugned recovery kept in abeyance for four weeks to facilitate invocation of arbitration clause.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38843 of 2022
Petitioner :- Shri Hari Rice Mill Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Singh,Ramendra Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Mishra
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2,4 and 7.
The petitioner is aggrieved by recovery certificate dated 29.10.2022 issued by the District Manager, PCU, Mathura and recovery citation dated 5.11.2022 issued by respondent no.6,Tehsildar, Tehsil Govardhan, District Mathura and has prayed for a mandamus restraining the respondent authority from realizing any sum under the recovery certificate.
The petitioner firm had entered into an agreement with the State Government for custom milling of paddy. The impugned recovery certificate is in respect of deficient supply of custom rice in return of paddy supplied.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in fact no paddy was supplied to the petitioner firm in pursuance of the agreement and consequently, the impugned demand is illegal.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 4 and 7 disputes the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner was supplied 3434.50 metric ton of paddy and against which, the requisite quantity of custom mill rice was not returned.
It is not disputed by the parties that under the agreement, there is an arbitration clause for resolving the disputes between the parties arising out of the contract. Where sum in dispute is between 50 lakhs and one crore as in the instant case, the arbitral tribunal is Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies.
Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will invoke the arbitration clause but submits that the petitioner be granted some breathing time by keeping the recovery in abeyance for some time.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents very fairly do not oppose the said prayer.
Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to invoke arbitration clause for resolution of dispute between the parties. It shall also be open to the petitioner to apply for stay of impugned recovery before the arbitral tribunal or before such other forum as may be advised.
For a period of four weeks from today, the impugned recovery shall be kept in abeyance to facilitate the petitioner to invoke the redressal mechanism provided under the agreement.
Order Date :- 20.12.2022 sfa/
(Jayant Banerji, J) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)
Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether recovery proceedings under a deficiency clause in a custom milling agreement should stay to allow arbitration.
Whether the State respondent can recover money for deficient supply of custom rice when no paddy was supplied.
Shri Hari Rice Mill
State Of U.P.
Manoj Kumar Gupta
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
