Disposed

M/S.Prakash Roadlines Corporation Ltd. v. Chairman-Cum-Md,Mcf Ltd.

Orissa HC2 Nov 2021WP(C)/15200/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a recovery demand dated 13th June, 2016 regarding alleged loss due to under-loading, the petitioner sought quashing. The court declined to adjudicate an amendment application to enlarge the prayer but restrained the opposite party from enforcing the demand for three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Opposite party restrained from giving effect to the recovery demand for three weeks; amendment application left unadjudicated.

M/S.Prakash Roadlines Corporation Ltd. Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 15200 of 2016 (Through hybrid mode)

¶3

M/s. Prakash Roadlines Corporation Ltd.

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr.R.M. Patnaik, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Chairman-cum-MD, MCF Ltd.

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr.A.K. Sharma, AGA

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

ORDER

02.11.2021

Order No.

08.

Mr. Pattnaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client’s challenge in this writ petition is against recovery demand dated 13^th June, 2016 for alleged loss suffered due to under loading in the pay loaders not having been fitted with “true load” system. His client also filed writ petition W.P.(C) no.1570 of 2017, which was dealt with on order dated 27^th October, 2021. He submits, only difference in this case is that his client made representation dated 17^th June, 2016. He prays for order of quashing the recovery demand.

¶16

Mr. Sharma, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party and submits, annexure-2 is his counter. Letter dated 27^th October, 2016 was issued upon consideration of the representation. His client, under the mechanism provided for in the general and special conditions of contract, has duly dealt

¶17

Page 1 of 1

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

with the representation and there should be no interference. He submits, an application has been served for amendment of the writ petition but that should not be allowed as prayer in the petition is against the recovery demand.

¶20

The writ petition was filed on 30^th August, 2016. Opposite party coalfield dealt with the representation thereafter, by letter dated 27^th October, 2016. Court is not inclined to adjudicate on the amendment application for enlarging prayer in the petition. In event petitioner is aggrieved by said letter dated 27^th October, 2016, petitioner has to separately challenge the same. If such challenge is mounted, this Court will deal with the petition at first instance as opposite party coalfield has made its contention clear in the counter, in disclosing and relying upon the representation and reply thereto. Opposite party coalfield is restrained from giving effect to the recovery demand for a period of three weeks from date.

¶21

RKS

¶22

Page 2 of 2

M/S.Prakash Roadlines Corporation Ltd. v. Chairman-Cum-Md,Mcf Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Prakash Roadlines Corporation Ltd. v. Chairman-Cum-Md,Mcf Ltd.

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

Rajat Kumar Singha Vs State of Orissa

Abhiram Roul Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Alfa Engineering and Construction Vs State of Odisha

Odisha Sales Represe Vs State and Ors.

M/S. Ag and Co-Mkepl-Gajv Vs Mcl,Sambalpur

M/S. P.K.Ores Pvt.Ltd. Vs Odisha State Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd.