Disposed

Himachal Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Sept 2017CWP/7861/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge oral order disposes of a writ petition filed by an industrial company seeking a direction to the State to decide representations regarding enhanced material rates in a supply contract within a fixed timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner's representations on enhanced material rates within a time-bound period after hearing.

Himachal Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWP No.7861 of 2012.

¶3

Date of decision: 04.09.2017.

¶4

Himachal Wire Industries Private Limited .….Petitioner.

¶5

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …..Respondents.

¶6

Coram

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 No

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

¶9

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral).

¶10

The petitioner has filed the writ petition with the following

¶11

prayers:-

¶12

“(i). That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner as per Annexure P-13 & P-14 within a time bound period for payment of enhanced rate (Rs.2034513.50) qua the G.I. wire in light of Annexures P-9 to P-12 and in view of the fact that the rate of the zinc increased three times in the open market in the year 2005 & 2006 and the petitioner supplied G.I. wire to the Respondent No.2 after purchasing the raw material from

¶13

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

¶14

¶15

the open market and in light of Clause 5 of the rate contract and in light of Clause 20 of the contract.

¶16

(ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondent No.2 to make the payment of Rs.2034513.50 alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum, which is payable to the petitioner from the year 2006 on account of enhanced rate in view of the fact that the rate of raw material i.e. zinc was Rs.69100/- per metric ton on 25.1.2005 and sam e increased upto Rs.1,40,400/- per metric ton till 1.4.2006 and the petitioner supplied G.I.wire 696.411 Metric tons to the Respondent No.2 and the enhancement of rates of the raw material in the open market has to be paid by the Respondent No.2 to the petitioner.

¶17

(iii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the Respondent No.2 to appoint an arbitrator for the adjudication of the dispute between the petitioner and the Department of Industries in light of Clause 5 of the rate contract and in light of Clause 20 of the contract.”

¶18

At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶19

made a categoric submission that he confines his claim in the writ petition only to relief No.1 and his client would be content in case the respondents are directed to decide the representation made by it vide Annexures P-13 and P-14 within a time bound manner after taking into consideration the documents Annexures P-9 to P-12. Obviously, the opposite side can have no objection to such an innocuous prayer.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation made by

¶21

¶22

the petitioner vide Reminder No.5 dated 27.12.2008 (Annexure P-13) and Reminder No.6 dated 18.08.2009 (Annexure P-14) and decide the same before 7^th October, 2017 after taking into consideration the documents i.e. letter dated 05.08.2006 (Annexure P-9), letter dated 21.08.2006 (Annexure P-10), letter dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure P-11) and letter dated 11.09.2009 (Annexure P-12) and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the duly authorized representative of the petitioner.

¶23

Needless to say that the order so passed shall be a selfsustained and speaking one.

¶24

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications.

¶25

Copy ‘dasti’.

¶26

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), 4^th September, 2017. Judge. (krt)

Himachal Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himachal Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Rajesh Kumar Vs Union of India

Ram Pal Vs Piar Chand

Ms New Prem Bus Service Vs State

Golf Link Finance and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pushpa Thapa

Union of India Vs Ram Swarup

Chaman Lal Vs State