The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a recovery notice dated 24.6.2022. The court held that since the petitioners are habitual defaulters who failed to comply with an earlier arbitration order, no equitable relief could be granted. The notice for recovery of interest, VAT, and Mandi fees was upheld.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:220204-DB
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39610 of 2023
Petitioner :- M/S Maa Sharda Rice Mill Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sumer Chaudhary,Suresh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ved Byas Mishra
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
petitioner to deposit the amount. Habitual defaulters are clearly disentitled to any equitable relief.
Order Date :- 21.11.2023 Faraz
(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.) (S. D. Singh, J.)
Digitally signed by :- FARAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should grant relief to a habitual defaulter challenging a recovery notice for interest on delayed procurement price payments.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to any leniency or time to deposit the outstanding amount given their failure to comply with the arbitration order.
M/S Maa Sharda Rice Mill
State Of U.P.
4 Others
Shiv Shanker Prasad
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
