Disposed¶17

M/S Agron Remedies Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC24 Jul 2026CWP/12425/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank guarantee forfeiture; e-tender Clause (9) Delays in Supplies and Performance of Contract; medicines supply agreement 23.02.2024; delayed supply Tab. Atorvastatin 20mg; representation Annexure P-9 reconsideration; premature writ petition; two-week direction to decide representation; arbitration clause; liberty to avail legal remedy; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; CWP No. 12425 of 2026; G. S. Sandhawalia CJ; Bipin C. Negi J.

What did the court decide?

Sole direction to the respondents to decide the representation dated 21.07.2026 (Annexure P-9) within two weeks; liberty to the petitioners to avail their remedy in accordance with law in case any further adverse order is passed; pending applications, if any, also disposed of. ¶17

M/S Agron Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13.07.2026 (Annexure P-8) forfeiting bank guarantee No. 041532411PG000078 for Rs. 21,87,682/- was sustainable, the stated reason being non-compliance with e-tender Clause (9) on Delays in Supplies and Performance of the Contract. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The Court expressly did not comment on the merits of the case.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The petition is premature because the issue of reconsideration of the forfeiture has been raised by the petitioners and the respondents have yet to take a call on it.

¶17

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of with a sole direction to the respondents to decide the representation (Annexure P-9) within two weeks; it is open to the petitioners to avail their remedy in accordance with law in case any further adverse order is passed.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No. 12425 of 2026, decided 24.07.2026) by M/s Agraon Remedies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. against the State of H.P. challenging the order dated 13.07.2026 (Annexure P-8) forfeiting bank guarantee No. 041532411PG000078 (Rs. 21,87,682/-) on the ground of non-compliance with e-tender Clause (9) on Delays in Supplies and Performance of the Contract. The State relied on a letter dated 26.09.2025 containing an apparent admission of delayed supply of Tab. Atorvastatin 20mg, pursuant to the agreement dated 23.02.2024 for supply of approved medicinal products. Noting the pending representation dated 21.07.2026 (Annexure P-9) seeking reconsideration and the existence of an arbitration clause inter se the parties, the Division Bench (G. S. Sandhawalia, CJ and Bipin C. Negi, J) held the petition premature and disposed of it with a sole direction to the respondents to decide the representation within two weeks, leaving the petitioners free to pursue their remedy in accordance with law against any further adverse order; the merits were not commented upon.

¶1

2026:HHC:30566

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶3

CWP No. 12425 of 2026

¶4

Date of decision: 24.07.2026

¶5

M/s Agraon Remedies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. …Petitioners Versus State of H. P. & Ors. …Respondents

¶6

Co ram

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Devin Kumar, Advocate.

¶8

For the Respondents: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4.

¶9

G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶10

Challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the order dated 13.07.2026 (Annexure P-8), whereby the bank guarantee No. 041532411PG000078 issued on 27.05.2024 (Annexure P-5) for Rs. 21,87,682/- has been forfeited by the respondents. The reasoning given in the said communication is that the petitioners did not follow the procedure as per the e- tender document terms and conditions Clause (9)-Delays in Supplies and Performance of the Contract.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to raise the issue that a communication had been addressed way back on 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-6), to the then Chief Secretary,

¶12

¶13

2026:HHC:30566

¶14

regarding the delay in payment and they were being penalized for even one day’s delay for the supply of medicines.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has brought to our notice a letter dated 26.09.2025, wherein apparently there is an admission also regarding the delay in the supply of Tab. Atorvastatin 20mg due to various factors. Apparently, the agreement entered into inter se the petitioners and the State and the Director, Health and Family Welfare, dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure P-5 colly) provided the supply of 11 list of approved products mainly medicines of different quantity at different rates.

¶16

In such circumstances, it is also brought to our notice that a representation against the forfeiture has already been made on 21.07.2026 (Annexure P-9) praying therein for reconsideration of the proposal. It is also brought to our notice that there is an arbitration clause inter se the parties as such.

¶17

In such circumstances, since issue of reconsideration has also been raised by the petitioners and the respondents have to take a call on it, we are of the considered opinion that the petition is premature. Resultantly, we dispose of the present petition with a sole direction to the respondents to decide the representation (Annexure P-9) within a period of two weeks from today. It is open to the petitioners to avail their remedy in accordance with law, in case any further adverse order is passed.

¶18

¶19

2026:HHC:30566

¶20

Needless to say that we have not commented on the merits of the case to that extent.

¶21