Allowed

Genex Industries Limited v. Union of India and Anr.

Delhi HC19 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/2550/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought refund of Rs. 2 lakhs encashed bank guarantee. The Court held a pure refund writ would not typically lie but issued a direction for the respondent to treat the petition as a representation and pass a speaking order within 10 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to treat writ petition as a representation and pass a speaking order within 10 weeks.

Genex Industries Limited Vs Union of India and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~42

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 19.3.2018

¶4

- W.P.(C) 2550/2018

¶5

GENEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED ..... Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Shubhankar Sengupta, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Vniyal with Mr. Dhawal Vniyal, Advs. for R-1.

¶9

CORAM:-

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

¶11

¶12

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)

¶13

CM No.10535/2018

¶14

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

W.P.(C) 2550/2018

¶16

The substantive prayers made in the suit is as follows:

¶17

“Call for the records of the Respondent and issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent to restitute to the petitioner the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) from the date of deposit being sometime in July, 2000 till date together with interest @ 18% per annum;”

¶18

The relief sought by the petitioner is in the following broad facts:

¶19

3.1 The petitioner was awarded a contract for wool combing and allied works. His contract contained job work and the same was awarded to the petitioner on 2.3.2000. According to the petitioner, in terms of the contract, the bank guarantee dated 14.3.2000 in the sum of Rs.2 lakhs was furnished to respondent No.2. It appears that respondent No.2 was not satisfied with the job work performed by the

¶20

W.P.(C) No.2550 of 2018

¶21

Pg. 1 of 3

¶22

petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No.2, on 25.5.2000, called upon the petitioner to replace the material. The petitioner disputed the stand taken by respondent No.2. This resulted in respondent No.2 invoking the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 consequently encashed the bank guarantee furnished by it. It appears that the petitioner being aggrieved and filed a suit before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana. This suit was filed on 19.7.2000. The petitioner’s suit, however, was dismissed. It appears that the learned Civil Judge while dismissing the suit took the view that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter and at the same time, decided the matter on merits.

¶23

3.2 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. Vide judgment dated 28.3.2014, the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana allowed the petitioner’s appeal primarily on the ground that once the Court came to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction, the Court ought not have decided the matter on merits. Consequently, a direction was issued that the petitioner’s plaint should be returned.

¶24

3.3 The petitioner, however, chose not to pursue the action any further. In the interregnum, on 29.7.2000, respondent No.2 had instituted a suit in this Court. This suit was numbered as CS(OS) 1706 of 2000. Via this suit, respondent No.1 claimed damages against the petitioner in a sum of Rs.13,80,725/-.

¶25

3.4 A perusal of the plaint shows that while calculating the damages, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs which had been received by respondent No.2 by encashing bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner was suitably adjusted. However, this suit of respondent No.2, on account of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, was transferred to the District Court. The suit upon transfer was, however, dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.8.2017 by Additional District Judge (West), Tis Hazari.

¶26

3.5 Counsel for the petitioner says that in these circumstances, the petitioner

¶27

W.P.(C) No.2550 of 2018

¶28

Pg. 2 of 3

¶29

has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition.

¶30

According to me, prima facie , writ petition for pure refund would not lie. Reasons for the same would be that there could be several defences that respondent No.2 may want to raise, if a suit was instituted. Mr. Shubhankar Sengupta, who appears for the petitioner, says that at this stage, he would like to obtain a limited direction qua respondent No.2 that the writ petition should be treated as a representation which respondent No.2 would deliberate upon and pass a speaking order.

¶31

In my view, this direction can be issued. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to treat this writ petition as a representation and pass a speaking order thereon in accordance with law. Needless to say that respondent No.2 will carry out this exercise, though not later than 10 weeks from today.

¶32

Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.

¶33

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

¶34

MARCH 19, 2018 /pmc

¶35

W.P.(C) No.2550 of 2018

¶36

Pg. 3 of 3

Genex Industries Limited v. Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Genex Industries Limited v. Union of India and Anr.

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

Madan Gopal Sharma Vs Government of India and Anr.

Entertainment Television Network Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Pawan Kumar Vs Staff Selection Commission

Satyendra Kumar Vs Maharaja Agarsain Public School (Recognized) & Anr.

Raj Degree College Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Milap Chand and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Daksh Bassi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ashish Kumar Verma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Entertainment Television Network Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Karan S. Thaukral Vs Union of India

M/S Surinder Singh Rampal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Subhash Saini and Anr. Vs Surat Singh Saini

Swargiya Sansad Chaudhary Multan Singh Smiriti Dharmarth Nyas Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Rishi Anand & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.