Disposed

Binod Kuamr Singh v. Sri Shrish Chandra Mishra and or

Patna HC4 Apr 2014MJC/3190/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court closed contempt proceedings filed against BSNL officials for alleged disobedience of an order directing payment of unpaid contractual dues. It held the company was not responsible for payment based on previous findings and directed the petitioner to seek appropriate legal remedies against the contractor.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings closed with liberty to the petitioner to resort to remedies available under law regarding its monetary claim against Respondent no. 7 (Hindustan Cables Limited).

Binod Kuamr Singh Vs Sri Shrish Chandra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

Patna High Court MJC No.3190 of 2009 (23) dt. 04-04-2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3190 of 2009

¶4

====================================================== 1. Binod Kumar Singh S/O Sri Ram Swaroop Prasad Singh Vill.- Kako, P.S.- Kako, Distt.- Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. Sri Shrish Chandra Mishra S/O Not Known, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Telecom Circle, Patna, Bihar 2. Sri Rajen R Prasad Tripathy S/O Not Known, General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Telecom Circle, Gaya 3. Sri Neel Kamal S/O Not Known Divisional Engineer, Rural, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Telecom Division, Gaya 4. Sri Basudeo Prasad S/O Not Known, Senior Accounts Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Gaya 5. Sri Acchaybat Nath Tiwary S/O Not Known, I.F.A./C.A.O., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Gaya 6. Sri P. Nag Bishwash S/O Not Known, General Manager (T.K.P.) M/S Hindustan Cables Ltd., 9, Elgin Road, Kolkata 7. Sri B.K. Choudhary S/O Not Known, Regional Manager (T.K.P.), M/S Hindustan Cables Ltd., Yadav Bhawan, New Punaichak Road No. 3, Shivpuri, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sushant Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite parties 1 to 5 :Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For Opposite party no.7 : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH CAV ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH)

¶5

23 04-04-2014 This application has been filed seeking initiation of a contempt proceeding, primarily, against the respondent nos. 1 to 5, who are officials of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BSNL’ ) for willful disobedience of the order, dated 25.8.2008, passed in L.P.A. No.712 of 2004.

¶6

2. The BSNL preferred LPA No.712 of 2004

¶7

Patna High Court MJC No.3190 of 2009 (23) dt. 04-04-2014

¶8

¶9

against order, dated 2.7.2004, passed in CWJC No.10479 of 2002, which was filed by Binod Kumar Singh (petitioner in this contempt application) seeking a direction to the respondents to pay, with interest @ 18% per annum, contractual dues, amounting to Rs.2,63,161/-, as against the work done with respect to laying Optical Fibre Cables from Rajauli Exchange to village Karma under Rajauli Sirdala Road.

¶10

3. The fact, in short, is that the Department of Telecommunication of BSNL awarded contract for several works to Hindustan Cables Limited (in short ‘HCL’), a Government of India Undertaking, including the project aforementioned. HCL, in turn, entered into a contract with the present petitioner for laying down OFD cables. The petitioner, having completed the work, raised a bill, which, according to the petitioner, remained unpaid and, therefore, demanded payment of his unpaid dues.

¶11

4. The HCL took stand, in the writ petition, that as the BSNL has not paid the contract money to them, they (HCL) are not able to pay the dues of the petitioner. The stand of the HCL was controverted by the BSNL, which claimed to have made payment far in excess of the work done by the HCL. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to Chief General

¶12

Patna High Court MJC No.3190 of 2009 (23) dt. 04-04-2014

¶13

¶14

Manager, BSNL, Telecommunication Department (i.e.

¶15

respondent no. 5) to intervene in the matter and see that the aforementioned dispute with HCL is resolved and payment of the admitted dues is released within a week from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order.

¶16

5. Being aggrieved, BSNL preferred LPA No. 712 of 2004. The Division Bench, in its order, dated 25.08.2008, observed that the direction of the learned single Judge to make payment of unpaid dues was to the HCL and not to the BSNL. Having so concluded, the Division Bench observed that BSNL is required to resolve the dispute between HCL and the contractor if it is found by Chief General Manager, BSNL, that any amount is due and payable to the writ petitioner from the said HCL.

¶17

6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶18

7. The stand of the BSNL is that it has paid money in excess of the contractual amount to HCL; whereas the latter has claimed that a sum of Rs.2,63,161/- is still due from the BSNL. The claim of the petitioner against HCL is a monetary claim arising out of contract between HCL, on the one hand, and the petitioner, on the other.

¶19

8. The stand of learned Counsel for the BSNL is that

¶20

Patna High Court MJC No.3190 of 2009 (23) dt. 04-04-2014

¶21

¶22

in spite of best efforts, it has not been possible for BSNL to ascertain the dues of the petitioner against HCL and it (BSNL) is unable to resolve the dispute.

¶23

9. In the circumstances mentioned above, it is difficult for us to hold that the BSNL has willfully not carried out the order of this Court. Further-more, the Division Bench has held that the BSNL would not be responsible for making payment to the writ petitioner. The contempt proceeding is, therefore, closed with liberty granted to the petitioner to take resort to the remedy available under the law with respect to its monetary claim against HCL.

¶24

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)

¶25

I agree

¶26

I. A. Ansari, J.:

¶27

(I. A. Ansari, J)

¶28

KHAN/-

Binod Kuamr Singh v. Sri Shrish Chandra Mishra and or

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Kuamr Singh v. Sri Shrish Chandra Mishra and or

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Tiwary and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mithilesh Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Sunaina Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

The Union Of India and Ors. Vs Vinod Kumar

Dharmendra Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Sita Devi Vs Ram Udgar Mahton@Anil Kumar