Allowed

Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan and Dombivli v. Leo Advertising and Marketing Co.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2009CAW/2555/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, allowed an application to condone the applicant's delay in filing an undertaking required to withdraw deposited funds. Costs were awarded to the respondent, and the respondent's prayer for stay was refused.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing undertaking condoned subject to payment of Rs. 2500 cost and filing revised undertaking by authorized officer within one week.

Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2555 OF 2008 IN

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.8206 OF 2007

¶4

Municipal Corporation for the city of Kalyan & Dombivali .. Applicant Versus Leo Advertising & Marketing Co. .. Respondents

¶5

Mr.A.S.Rao for applicant Mr.P.J.Thorat for respondents.

¶6

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶7

DATE : 14^h September 2009.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

1] In this civil application, the limited request is that the delay in furnishing of undertaking as provided in the order passed by this Court be condoned.

¶10

2] Mr.Rao appearing in support of this application contended that the undertaking could not be filed within the time stipulated because of the lapse on the part of the officers in noticing the order and the compliance

¶11

¶12

contemplated thereunder. The delay is not deliberate or intentional but only because of the pressure of work and administrative exigencies. In these circumstances, by passing appropriate order in the interest of justice, the delay be condoned.

¶13

3] On the other hand Mr.Thorat learned Counsel appearing for respondent contended that the order is self-explanatory. The order itself clearly stipulates that if the undertaking is not furnished, the benefit there under would not be available. Further, the conduct of the applicant is highlighted in the affidavit in reply and now this Court should not, therefore, pass any equitable and discretionary order. More so, when the Corporation has caused loss to the respondent by its inaction and highhanded acts in some instances.

¶14

4] Having perused the civil application and the affidavits on record so also the order under challenge, I see no reason to reject the limited request made by the applicant. The amount is admittedly deposited in this Court. The amount is lying in this Court and the order permitted the Corporation to withdraw the same on furnishing of this undertaking. In

¶15

¶16

such circumstances and when the monies are for the benefit of public body, the inaction of its officers should not cause any loss or prejudice to the interest of the Corporation. In the larger interest of justice, the delay is condoned, subject to Corporation paying cost quantified at Rs.2500/within a period of one week from today. If the costs are paid to the respondents and proof produced the Registry to permit the applicant Corporation to file an undertaking of an appropriate/ authorised officer substituting that of Mr.Suresh Pawar and, thereafter, withdraw the sums along with interest accrued thereon. If compliance is not made of this condition, the civil application to stand dismissed without any further reference to this Court.

¶17

5] At this stage, Mr.Thorat for respondents prays for stay of this order. In my view, when the order passed does not prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties and if there are any subsequent acts and developments, then in the pending suit or in the substantive proceedings, it will be open to the respondents to claim all such reliefs as are permissible in law, then, there is no reason to stay the operation of this order. Prayer in that behalf is refused. However, it is clarified that this

¶18

¶19

order shall not in any manner preclude the respondents from raising appropriate pleas and contentions and all aspects on merits are kept open. C.A. disposed of accordingly.

¶20

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)

Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan and Dombivli v. Leo Advertising and Marketing Co.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Municipal Corporation for the City of Kalyan and Dombivli v. Leo Advertising and Marketing Co.

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

State Bank of India Vs Rohit Tiwari

Prerna Sanjay Vedak and 2 Ors. Vs Amol Pandharinath Vedak

Ramesh Pannalal Ranawat proprietor of M/s. Ramesh Zaveri and Co. Vs Manjunath Proprietor of M/s. Suraj Jewel Palace

M/S. Vinayak Land Development Corpn. Vs Shree Resham Textiles Mills Ltd. and Ors.

Satish T. Mehta Vs Arr Industrial Network

Shadilal and Sons Vs Amit Raj Akela and Anr.