Disposed

M/S Sbe Engineering and Infrastructure Private Limited v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Aug 2024CW/11344/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court stayed proceedings pursuant to demand notices regarding recovery of funds from a corporate petitioner pending the decision of a stay application filed alongside a second appeal under the RTPP Act, 2012.

What did the court decide?

Stay on proceedings pursuant to demand notices dated 25.06.2024 and 19.07.2024 until the competent authority decides the stay application pending with the second appeal.

M/S Sbe Engineering and Infrastructure… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:33982]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11344/2024

¶4

M/s Sbe Engineering And Infrastructure Private Limited, A Company Registered Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 2013 Having Its Registered Office At 49-C, New Jata Bass, Maderna Colony, Jodhpur Through Its Authorized Signatory Sukhram Bishnoi S/o Phagalu Ram, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Bola Beniwalon Ki Dhani, Vinayakpura, Jodhpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Jaipur.

¶8

Chief Engineer, Project, Public Health Engineering Department, Jodhpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Chayan Bothra
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG with
	Mr. Rajdeep Singh Chouhan & Ms. Aditi Moad

¶11

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶12

Order

¶13

16/08/2024

¶14

The present writ petition has been preferred against the demand notice dated 25.06.2024 issued by the respondent Department for an amount of Rs.2,83,20,000/-. Vide the said notice, it has been directed that if the amount as demanded is not deposited within a period of three days, the same shall be recovered from the other due amount of the contractor.

¶15

Vide the subsequent notice dated 19.07.2024, the said amount has been directed to be recovered/adjusted from the dues of the contractor qua the other contracts.

[2024:RJ-JD:33982]

[CW-11344/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Second Appeal has already been preferred by the petitioner in terms of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RTPP Act’) and the same remains pending before the competent authority as of date. He makes a limited prayer to restrict the respondent-Department from recovering/adjusting the amount till the said appeal as preferred by the petitioner is decided or any effective order on the stay application is passed by the competent authority.

¶20

Learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the State is under the jurisdiction to adjust the amount from the other contracts of the contractor in terms of Clause 50 of the agreement governing the authorities. He therefore submits that the notice impugned does not deserve to be stayed.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

It is an admitted fact that an appeal in terms of the provisions of the RTPP Act has already been preferred by the petitioner and the same remains pending.

¶23

In view of the same, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the stay application as preferred by the petitioner along with the Second Appeal, on the next date fixed which is informed to be, 21.08.2024.

¶24

It is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear on the said date before the competent authority, he shall be at liberty to proceed further and pass appropriate orders.

¶25

[2024:RJ-JD:33982]

¶26

[CW-11344/2024]

¶27

Till the stay application is decided by the competent authority, no proceeding in pursuance to the notices dated 25.06.2024 and 19.07.2024 shall be undertaken by the respondent-Department. It is however made clear that the present restraint order shall remain in force till the date of decision made by the competent authority on the stay petition as preferred by the petitioner.

¶28

Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of .

¶29

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶30

300-KashishS/-

M/S Sbe Engineering and Infrastructure Private Limited v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sbe Engineering and Infrastructure Private Limited v. the State of Rajasthan

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

M/S Shri Mangi Lal Vishnoi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mrs. Laxmi Devi Vs Adtiya Birla Finance Ltd.

Karamjeet Kaur Vs Naresh Kumar Nagpal

Rajasthan Petroleum Dealers Association Vs Union of India

Godu Banajara Vs Hajaridas

Rodilal Vs Hajaridas