Partly allowed

Uday Raj Gupta v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC8 Oct 2012CWJC/13264/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed modification of earlier writ order by recalling the cost component directed against the State, while retaining the interest direction. The main writ application was disposed of as payments were no longer in dispute.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the order dated 17.05.2011 limited to recalling the cost of Rs.10,000; interest direction retained. Writ application disposed of.

Uday Raj Gupta Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13264 of 2007

¶2

	====================================================== Uday Raj Gupta son of Late Sri Gopalji Gupta residnet of Hasan Bazar, P.O. Hasan Bazar, P.S. Piro, District Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar Verma Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Ga7) ======================================================
	CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER
9	08-10-2012 I.A. No. 1922 of 2012 has been filed for
	modification of the order passed earlier in the writ application on
	17.05.2011. In paragraph 2 of the said order, a direction had been issued upon the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 11% from
	the date the amount became due till the date of payment. In
	addition, a cost of Rs.10,000/- was also imposed.

¶3

The Court is satisfied that atleast one part of the order dated 17.05.2011 is not required to be modified which is a direction for payment of interest at the rate of 11% because the accepted position even on behalf of the State which emerges from paragraph 6 of the I.A. is that payments have been made in the year 2009 though the order of the House Controller is dated 15.07.2006. This Court, therefore, is not willing to modify this

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.13264 of 2007 (9) dt.08-10-2012

¶5

¶6

part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 17.05.2011.

¶7

However, so far as the question of payment of cost is concerned, the Court is inclined to recall that order and the State is absolved from payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. I.A. No. 1922 of 2012 stands allowed limited to the extent indicated above.

¶8

So far as the writ application is concerned, it must be allowed to rest in view of payments which have already been made to the petitioners which is no longer in dispute.

¶9

This writ application stands disposed of.

¶10

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)

¶11

Amin/-

Uday Raj Gupta v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Raj Gupta v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshman Ram and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Ram Chalittar Rai Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Samir Kumar Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Md.Aslam Hussain Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Prashidesh Chakravarty Vs the Bihar State Housing BOARDand

City Auto Service Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.