Disposed

Snowline Engineers v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC17 Jun 2022WPA/6948/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P.A. 6948 of 2021, the Single Judge disposed of the petition where a firm sought payment for completed works. Since respondents were absent, the court directed respondent No. 2 to grant a personal hearing and decide the claim within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to afford a personal hearing and decide the claim for payment within one month.

Snowline Engineers Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

17.06.2022 Item No. 5 Ct. No. 40 AKG

¶2

W.P.A. 6948 of 2021

¶3

Snowline Engineers represented by one of its partner Sri Subhajit Ghosh Vs.

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Samrat Choudhury, Mr. Suvadeep Sen …For the Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Arun Kr. Roy, Mr. Debasish Chattopadhyay …For the State

¶7

Despite service, respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 are not represented.

¶8

It appears that a work order was issued in favour of the petitioner for the “supply, installation, and commissioning of Modernized Cold Room with all accessories” for the Department of Biological Sciences, Aliah University. The total value of the said work was Rs. 4,38,095.00/-.

¶9

It is the case of the petitioner that he duly executed the said work order. By referring to the pages 24 to 27 of the writ petition, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner duly supplied the required articles to Alia University which was received by it on November 5, 2019. The petitioner alleges that

¶10

¶11

though there is no dispute with regard to execution of the work order in question, no payment has been made to him.

¶12

It appears that the petitioner has made a representation before respondent no. 2 as well as before respondent no.3 by a letter dated February 3, 2021. Despite such representations being made, the claim of the petitioner was not considered.

¶13

Since the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 are not present, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and take a decision with regard to the payment of his legitimate dues following the work order issued on July 10, 2019. Such decision shall be made and communicated to the petitioner within one month from the date.

¶14

Accordingly, W.P.A. 6948 of 2021 is disposed of.

¶15

Let urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities.

¶16

(Kausik Chanda, J.)

Snowline Engineers v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Snowline Engineers v. State of West Bengal and 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

Mrityunjay Bhattacharyya Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Swapan Bhowal Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Monoranjan Das & Anr. Vs State

Raihan Ul Haque Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Subhendu Mukherjee and Ors. Vs University of Calcutta and Ors.

Dr Amit Mandal Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.