Disposed

M/S Mrr Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Up and 7 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024WRIC/16288/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Respondents to reimburse the petitioner a sum of Rs. 90,90,886/- paid as lease rent for property possessed by authorities from 2000 to 2019, rejecting inter-departmental confusion as a ground for non-payment.

What did the court decide?

Direction made to Respondents 2 to 4 to pay Rs. 90,90,886/- to the petitioner within six weeks.

M/S Mrr Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:125744-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16288 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Mrr Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Respondent :- State Of Up And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghuvansh Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushalendra Nath Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶7

This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in making payment of lease rent of the property in question which was in possession of the respondent authorities.

¶8

In the present factual matrix, the facts are undisputed with regard to the respondent authorities being in possession of the property belonging to the petitioner from the year 2000 to 2019. The trade tax department was admittedly in possession of the property in question.

¶9

It is to be noted that the petitioner has paid the amount demanded by the NOIDA amounting to Rs.90,90,886/- as lease rent for the aforesaid period. Admittedly, the said amount is required to be reimbursed to the petitioner by the respondent authorities, who were in possession of the property. The respondent authorities did not dispute their liability to make the payment. However, there seems to be a confusion with regard to which department is to make payment, whether the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar or Commercial Tax Department,

¶10

NOIDA.

¶11

Upon consideration of the various facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the dispute between the intra-department of the Government should not be an excuse for non-payment of the amount to the petitioner. Furthermore, we are of the view that since the Commissioner of Trade Tax was in possession of the property since 2000 to 2019, the liability squarely falls on him.

¶12

In light of the same, we direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to make payment of Rs.90,90,886/- to the petitioner within six weeks from date.

¶13

In view of the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 Kuldeep

¶15

(Manjive Shukla, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Mrr Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Up and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mrr Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Up and 7 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sushil Kumar Singh and 13 Others vs State of Up and 6 Others

Smt Urmila Devi vs State of Up and 2 Others

Vipendra Singh vs Union of India and Another

Bhagwan Das vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Manju Singh and 30 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Nisha Kureel vs State of Up and 3 Others