Allowed

Mesa Narula Infra Projects Private Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC10 Dec 2020WPO/401/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued pending reliefs in a writ petition filed by a construction company against the Railway authorities. The petitioners sought refund of a security deposit withheld despite the authorities admitting fulfillment of obligations. The court directed immediate disbursement.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to disburse the entire security deposit amount of Rs.68,34,203.00P within one week.

Mesa Narula Infra Projects Private Limited and Anr… — Company and Corporate | Calcutta HC (2020)

¶1

ORDER SHEET

¶2

WPO NO.401 OF 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE

¶3

MESA NARULA INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA Date : 10^th December, 2020

¶6

Appearance : Mr. Sakya Sen, Mr. Anirban Pramanik, Mr. S. Mukherjee, Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, Advs., for the petitioner.

¶7

Mrs. Aparna Banerjee, Adv., for the respondent.

¶8

The Court : The petitioners’ grievance is that although the railway authorities categorically communicated that all contractual obligations had been fulfilled on behalf of the petitioners and that there was no claim outstanding against the contractor for his work and the security deposit stood refundable, the railway authorities have withheld a substantial portion of such refund.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the communication no. DCE/Con/CR/WT/792/1026 dated July 1, 2020 wherein the eastern railway categorically admitted that approval had arrived for release of full security deposit and that pay order had been already prepared for the entire amount and enclosed for early release of the full security deposit to the agency at the earliest with intimation to the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer/Con/I/Eastern Railway, Sealdah.

¶10

Such communication categorically shows that the process of refund was finalised and there could not have been any impediment in releasing the amount in favour of the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

Learned Counsel for the respondents, on instruction, argues that more than Rs.38 lakhs out of the security deposit amount has already been released in favour of the petitioners. The balance amount, it is submitted, has been adjusted in respect of other contracts with the petitioner as per terms of such contracts.

¶13

However, the present contract, on the basis of which the refund of the security deposit was already finalised, cannot be equated or mixed up with other contractual liabilities between the parties. Moreover, in view of the categorical admission on the part of the respondent authorities, as evident from the communication dated July 1, 2020, there is no scope of the railway authorities to retract from immediate refund of the entire amount of the security deposit.

¶14

That apart, there is no lien in law over the security deposit payable to the petitioners in respect of the contract-in-question on the basis of other contractual obligations which may exist between the parties, emanating from different and distinct contracts.

¶15

Accordingly, WPO No.401 of 2020 is allowed, thereby directing the respondents to disburse the entire security deposit amount of Rs.68,34,203.00P in favour of the petitioners within a week from date.

¶16

It is made clear that in the event a portion of such amount has already been released in favour of the petitioners, the respondents shall only disburse the balance amount out of the total of Rs.68,34,203.00P to the petitioner within the aforesaid time limit.

¶17

No order as to costs.

¶18

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties subject to compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶19

(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

¶20

S.Das AR[CR]

Mesa Narula Infra Projects Private Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mesa Narula Infra Projects Private Limited and Anr. v. Union of India 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

Swastik Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Sundarananda Barman and Another Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Prime Technoplast Private Limited Vs Indian Bank and Ors.

Kanishk Sinha Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Poddar Business Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sk Mehdi Hassan Vs Union of India and Ors.