Disposed

Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Sign., Sunil Vitthal Patil., v. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Govt. of Goa and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2019WP/7/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged contract termination and blacklisting. Respondent agreed to withdraw blacklisting order; Petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to sue. Court granted leave to withdraw without examining merits.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to raise issues in a civil suit.

Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd., Thr. Its… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

 1 wp7-19-21-01-19

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7 OF 2019

¶5

Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd.…..Petitioner.
 Versus

¶6

Goa State Infrastructure Development
…...
Corpn. Ltd. and others. Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Aman Preet Singh Rahi with Mr. Pulkit Bandodkar, Advocate
for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Dattaprasad Lawande, Advocate General with Mr. P. Dangui,
Government Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2.

¶9

Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶10

Coram : M.S. Sonak &
 Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ.
 Date : 21 January 2019.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

 Heard Mr. Aman Preet Singh Rahi for the Petitioner,
Mr. Dattaprasad Lawande, learned Advocate General for
Respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. S. D. Padiyar for Respondent
No.4.

¶13

2.The challenge in this Petition is mainly to the notice of
termination of the contract dated 21 September 2018, by which
Respondent No.1 has not only terminated the contract awarded to
the Petitioner for construction of bus-stand and mini depot at
Sankhali, Goa, but, further proceeded to blacklist/debar the

¶14

 2 wp7-19-21-01-19

¶15

Petitioner for a period of 5 years from quoting the bids floated or the
works tendered by the Respondent No.1-GSIDC.

¶16

3.In so far as the issue of blacklisting is concerned, Mr.
Lawande, the learned Advocate General appearing for Respondent
No.1 makes a statement that the order dated 21 September 2018, to
the extent it relates to the issue of blacklisting/debarment, will be
withdrawn, a fresh show cause notice will be issued to the Petitioner
and depending upon the response of the Petitioner, a fresh decision,
on this issue, will be taken in the matter. According to us, this takes
care of the Petitioner's grievance on the issue of
blacklisting/debarment is concerned.

¶17

4.In so far as other issues relating to termination of the
contract, raised in this Petition, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, on the basis of the instructions from the Petitioner, craves
leave to withdraw this Petition, with liberty to raise and agitate these
very issues before the appropriate forum including, inter alia, by
institution of a civil suit.

¶18

5.There is no difficulty in accepting the request of the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Accordingly, leave is granted to
withdraw this Petition, with liberty as prayed for.

¶19

 3 wp7-19-21-01-19

¶20

6.We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of
the issues and, therefore, all contentions of all the parties are left
open.

¶21

7. The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶22

(Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.)

Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Sign., Sunil Vitthal Patil., v. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Govt. of Goa and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd., Thr. Its Aut. Sign., Sunil Vitthal Patil., v. Goa State Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Govt. of Goa and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohan Pradeep Dhungat, Presently Lodged in Central Jail, Colvale., Vs State of Goa, Thr. the Police Inspector, Panaji Police Station, Panaji and Anr.

Ganindu Milk and Milk Products Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Its Director, Dnyndeo Ganpati Salunkhe and 2 Ors., Vs the State of Goa, Thr. Police Inspector Cbi/Act, Panaji and 7 Ors.

The Goa Foundation, Thr. Its Secretary, Dr. Claude Alvares., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 4 Ors.

Tom Menino Monteiro, by His Attorney, Waman K. Nayak., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Chief Secretary and 6 Ors.

Rajeninata Alias Rajaninath Shirodkar and Anr., Vs Kamakshi Saunsthan Shiroda and 3 Ors.

Village Panchayat Aldona, Thr. Its Secretary, Pravisha Bhonsle., Vs State of Goa, Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 2 Ors.