Disposed

M/s Phoenix Technology Corporation v. The Chief Singal

Madras HC16 Dec 2021WP/34839/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Directorate of a Writ Petition under Article 226 seeking order for the final settlement of bill and security deposit. The Court directs the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders after affording hearing within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st Respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 23.09.2019 and pass orders after hearing within four weeks.

M/s Phoenix Technology Corporation Vs The… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 16.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.34839 OF 2019

¶6

M/s.Phoenix Technology Corporation Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Manager, K.Simpson (M-53 years) No.980 First Floor, TNHB Main Road, Velachery, Chennai 600 042. ...Petitioner

¶7

vs.

¶8

1.The Chief Signal & Telecommunication Engineer/Project, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai 600 003.

¶9

2.The Deputy Chief Signal & Telecommunication Engineer/Project, Southern Railway,

¶10

Trichirapalli.

¶11

...Respondents

¶12

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st Respondent to forthwith settle the Final Bill and Security Deposit on the basis of the representation dated 23.09.2019, acknowledged on 27.09.2019, within a stipulated time.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Chandrakumar For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

Petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 1^st Respondent to forthwith settle the Final Bill and Security Deposit on the basis of the representation dated 23.09.2019.

¶16

According to the Petitioner, it was awarded contractual work for provision of signaling arrangements (relay interlocking – Route setting type) in connection with the replacement of signaling gears in Madurai Division. As there was a dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondents towards settlement of

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

the Final Bill and Security Deposit, the matter was referred for Arbitration and an Award was passed in favour of the Petitioner. Challenging the same, O.P.No.217 of 2009 was filed and the same came to be partly allowed. Thereafter, the Petitioner made a representation on 23.09.2019 for settlement of the final Bill and Security Deposit. However, no orders are passed on the same till date.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, this Court may issue a direction to the 1^st Respondent to consider and pass orders on the Petitioner's representation dated 23.09.2019 within a stipulated time.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without going into its merits, this Court directs the 1^st Respondent herein to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 23.09.2019 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

// True Copy //

(aeb)

To:

1.The Chief Signal & Telecommunication Engineer/Project, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai 600 003.

¶27

2.The Deputy Chief Signal & Telecommunication Engineer/Project, Southern Railway, Trichirapalli.

¶28

+1cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar, Advocate SR.No.67678

¶29

+1cc to Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, Advocate SR.No.67728

¶30

W.P.No.34839 of 2019

¶31

GP(CO) RVM(03/01/2022)

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s Phoenix Technology Corporation v. The Chief Singal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Phoenix Technology Corporation v. The Chief Singal

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

K.Mohan Vs The Managing Director

M/s.Arenco Catering Vs The Director / Cs

Manju Chamundeeswari Vs Union of India

N.Balasubramanian Vs The Managing Direcctor

Harur Valli Madurai Varattaru Vs The District Collector

Private Iti (Industrial Training Institute), Vs The Deputy Director General of Training