Allowed

M/S Bansal Rice Factory v. Managing Director Markfed and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Feb 2015CWP/3755/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought refund of tender earnest money withheld by respondents for alleged pending stocks. Since no enforceable decree or order existed against the petitioner regarding those stocks, this court held the withholding unjustified, quashed the order, and directed refund with interest. Writ petition disposed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; refund of earnest money with 12% interest directed within four weeks.

M/S Bansal Rice Factory Vs Managing… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

CWP No.3755 of 2007

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.3755 of 2007 Date of Decision.10.02.2015

¶5

M/s Bansal Rice Factory

¶6

.......Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Managing Director, Markfed and another

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

Present: Mr. Kukand Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

¶17

K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)

¶18

The petitioner seeks for refund of the earnest money deposited to the tune of ` 5.90 lacs for participating in the tender for the year 1999-2000. The petitioner was successful in the tender application and when he had made a demand, the refund was denied through the impugned order dated 26/28.12.2006 stating that it was liable for adjustment against pending stocks of 1750 bags lifted by the petitioner from B.O. Tapa during the crop year 1997-98. The petitioner's contention is that with reference to the alleged pending stocks for the crop year 1997-98, there was an adjudication before the Arbitrator and the respondent's claim had been denied. It was sought to be challenged before the Civil Court in proceedings under Section 34 of

¶19

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act where also the respondent had lost. PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.02.12 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

-2-

¶21

CWP No.3755 of 2007

¶22

They are claiming that they had preferred appeal but till now there is no order allowing for recovery for alleged pending stocks for the year 1997-98.

¶23

If there is not existing decree or enforceable order for alleged pending stocks for the crop year 1997-98, the question of withholding the security deposit made for participating in the tender for subsequent years 1999-2000 cannot be justified at all. I find the impugned order to be wholly untenable and I quash the same. I direct the refund of the amount with interest @12% in favour of the petitioner from the date when the amount was deposited till the date of payment. The payment shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶25

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶26

February 10, 2015 Pankaj*

¶27

PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.02.12 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S Bansal Rice Factory v. Managing Director Markfed and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bansal Rice Factory v. Managing Director Markfed and Anr.

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

Yashpal etc. Vs State of Pb.

Om Parkash Vs State of Hy.

Baljinder Singh and Another Vs State of Pb.

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manoj & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Kedar Vs State of Haryana