Disposed

Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC7 Nov 2016W.P.(C)/10225/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought disbursement of Rs. 8.36 crore as Net Present Value for forest clearances. Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation with documents; respondent to decide within four weeks. Writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach superior forum if aggrieved.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit representation within one week; respondent to decide within four weeks.

Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 10225/2016 && CM No. 40355-40356/2016

¶4

JAYASWAL NECO INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Devashish Bharuka and Mr. Ravi Bharuka, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Sanjiv Narula, CGSC with Ms. Kanika Singh and Mr. Shreshtha Jain, Advocates

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R

¶9

% 07.11.2016

¶10

The petitioner by the present petition seeks disbursement of an amount of Rs. 8, 36,48,510/- allegedly towards the Net Present Value (NPV) of the amount spent by the petitioner for obtaining forest clearances for Moitra Coal block allotted to the petitioner. It is contended that in addition to other amounts, the petitioner is also entitled to the said amount.

¶11

Learned ASG appearing on behalf of respondents submits that the petitioner has not given any representation claiming amount under the said head and if any such representation is made by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law and in case any amount is found to be legally payable the same would be paid to the petitioner.

¶12

W.P.(C) 10225/2016

¶13

Page 1

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a representation was made on 10.05.2016, however, a fresh composite representation inter alia also seeking the above amount would be made within a period of one week.

¶15

In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to submit a representation to the competent authority within a period of one week along with all supporting documents and annexures.

¶16

On such a representation being made, the respondent/competent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks.

¶17

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms, reserving liberty of the petitioner to take such remedies as may be available in law, in case the petitioner is aggrieved by any decision of the respondent.

¶18

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶19

NOVEMBER 07, 2016 ‘ rs’

¶20

W.P.(C) 10225/2016

¶21

Page 2

Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

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

Purvanchal Chhath & Sanskritik Vikas Samiti Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Amrik Singh Vs D.D.A. & Ors.

The Director General Esic & Ors. Vs Sheeja Santosh & Ors.

Magic Sewa Pvt. Ltd. Vs Airports Authority of India & Ors.

Arun Kumar Shukla Vs Annamalai University & Anr.

Kesharinandan & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Manju Vs State NCT of Delhi

Union of India Vs Dr. Anil Kumar Jain & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Phoenix Arc Pvt. Limited Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Panchajanya Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vikas Khatri & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Madhusmita Saikia Vs Central Information Commission and Ors.

M/C Richi Store Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.