Disposed

Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Limited and Anr. v. Official Liquidator, Shri Datta Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Asurle-Porle and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Feb 2013WP/163/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of this writ petition without reaching the merits. It accepted a statement by the Commissioner of Sugar that non-payment of tender dues would not be considered for the crushing licence, rendering further arguments unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by accepting the response that payment of tender dues would not be considered for the crushing licence application.

Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Limited and Anr. Vs… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP163_2013

¶2

Vidya amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 163 OF 2013

¶5

Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd. & Anr. … Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

Official Liquidator, Shri Datta Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., AsurlePorle & Ors. ... Respondents

¶8

Mr. Nitin Thakkar, Senior Counsel a/w. Ms. Raj Panchmatia, Mr. Ameya Gokhale, Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, Mr. Suhas Sagar i/b. Khaitan & Co., Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Khasbardar a/w. Mr. Drupad Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. S.R. Ganbavale, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Mr. S.K. Shinde, GP for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶10

CORAM : S.J. Vazifdar and Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, JJ. DATE : 26^th February, 2013.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, the Writ

¶13

Petition is heard finally.

¶14

Mr. Thakkar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶15

petitioners states that the respondent no. 3 Commissioner of Sugar has refused to issue a crushing licence interalia on the ground that the petitioners have allegedly failed to make payment of various amounts as per the tender document, pursuant to which the petitioners had purchased the sugar kharkhana.

¶16

Mr. Shinde, learned GP appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3

¶17

1 of 2

¶18

WP163_2013

¶19

fairly states that the respondent no. 3 does not intend refusing to issue the crushing licence on the ground of nonpayment of the dues as per the tender document. He states that the hearing has been scheduled on 5^th March, 2013 inter alia regarding the petitioners having illegally crushed large quantities of sugarcanes without a licence. He further states that the hearing will be concluded and the decision will be rendered on or before 15^th March, 2013.

¶20

In view of the above statement, it is not necessary to consider the petitioners contention that they are not liable to pay all the amounts mentioned in Clause 28 of the tender document.

¶21

The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of by accepting the statement made by Mr. Shinde appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3 that while considering whether or not to grant the crushing licence, respondent no. 3 will not take into consideration the alleged non payment of amounts under the tender document. In the event of crushing licence being granted, respondent no. 4 will consider the application for molasses licence. Accordingly none of the other contentions have been considered.

¶22

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶23

(S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)

¶24

2 of 2

Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Limited and Anr. v. Official Liquidator, Shri Datta Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Asurle-Porle and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Limited and Anr. v. Official Liquidator, Shri Datta Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Asurle-Porle and Ors.

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

Shri. Prabhakar Govindrao Arade Vs the State of Maharasthra and Ors.

Ukkuda Vilasini Ratnakar Vs Mr. Damodar Krishna Deshmukh

Smt. B. a. Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Limited and Anr. Vs Official Liquidator, Shri Datta Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Asurle-Porle and Ors.

Ramona Rodella Vs Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and 2 Ors.

Kagalwala Building Resident Welfare Association Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Ors.