Dismissed

Bhupendra Singh Gusai v. Chairman and Managing Director Power Grid Corproration of India

Uttarakhand HC1 May 2023SPA/104/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Appeal against the dismissal of a Writ Petition seeking payment from Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. to an appellant-subcontractor. The High Court held that since the main contractor is in liquidation, the remedy lies before the NCLT, not the High Court.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal dismissed; Writ Petition deemed inapplicable; remedy to be approached before NCLT.

SL. No Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
0 1 .0 5 .2 0 2 3		SPA No. 104 of 2023 Hon’ble Vipin San gh i, C.J. Hon’ble Rak esh Th apliy al, J. 1. Mr. Rituparna Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India.
		4. The present Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMS No. 408 of 2023 preferred by the appellant. The appellant had preferred the said Writ Petition to seek a direction to the respondent- Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. to make payment to the appellant-subcontractor, in lieu of payment which was due to M/ s Coastal Project Ltd – the main contractor for the work of Slope Protection and Site Leveling work at 765 KV Koteshwar Substation of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. 5. The case of the petitioner was that M/ s Coastal Project Ltd. had gone into liquidation. The appellant claims that the Official Liquidator had required the employer, i.e. the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. to release payment to the sub-contractor and appellant-company under liquidation, and M/ s Coastal Project Ltd. and the appellant sought to enforce the said direction of the Liquidator by preferring the Writ Petition. 6. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ

SL.
No
Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

0 1 .0 5 .2 0 2 3

SPA No. 104 of 2023
Hon’ble Vipin San gh i, C.J.
Hon’ble Rak esh Th apliy al, J.
1.
Mr. Rituparna Joshi, learned counsel for the
appellants.
2.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for
the State of Uttarakhand.
3.
Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, learned Standing Counsel for
the Union of India.

4.
The present Special Appeal is directed against
the order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge in WPMS No. 408 of 2023 preferred by
the appellant. The appellant had preferred the said
Writ Petition to seek a direction to the respondent-
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. to make payment
to the appellant-subcontractor, in lieu of payment
which was due to M/ s Coastal Project Ltd – the main
contractor for the work of Slope Protection and Site
Leveling work at 765 KV Koteshwar Substation of
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
5.
The case of the petitioner was that M/ s Coastal
Project Ltd. had gone into liquidation. The appellant
claims that the Official Liquidator had required the
employer, i.e. the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.
to
release
payment
to
the
sub-contractor
and
appellant-company under liquidation, and M/ s Coastal
Project Ltd. and the appellant sought to enforce the
said direction of the Liquidator by preferring the Writ
Petition.
6.
The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ

Petition on the ground that, since M/ s Coastal Pr	oject
Ltd., of which the appellant was the sub-contra	ctor,
had gone into liquidation, and the Insolvency	and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 had become applicable,	the
Writ Petition would not be maintainable.
7. The submission of learned counsel for	the
appellant is that the respondent-Power	Grid
Corporation of India Ltd. did release an amount of lacs for another sub-contractor.	Rs.7
8. We are not concerned with the said as	pect.
Since M/ s Coastal Projects Ltd. had gone	into
liquidation, the remedy of the appellant lies before NCLT, and no other forum.	the
9. We, therefore, do not find any reason to inte	rfere
with the impugned order. The Special Appea	l is,
accordingly, dismissed. 10. Since we have examined the appeal on me we are not going into the aspect of delay.	rits,
11. Consequently, pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. ( Rak esh Th apliy al, J.) ( Vipin San gh i, C.J. 0 1 .0 5 .2 0 2 3 0 1 .0 5.2 0 2 3 Rahul	also )

Petition on the ground that, since M/ s Coastal Pr

oject

Ltd., of which the appellant was the sub-contra

ctor,

had gone into liquidation, and the Insolvency

and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 had become applicable,

the

Writ Petition would not be maintainable.

7.
The submission of learned counsel for

the

appellant
is
that
the
respondent-Power

Grid

Corporation of India Ltd. did release an amount of
lacs for another sub-contractor.

Rs.7

8.
We are not concerned with the said as

pect.

Since
M/ s
Coastal
Projects
Ltd.
had
gone

into

liquidation, the remedy of the appellant lies before
NCLT, and no other forum.

the

9.
We, therefore, do not find any reason to inte

rfere

with the impugned order. The Special Appea

l is,

accordingly, dismissed.
10.
Since we have examined the appeal on me
we are not going into the aspect of delay.

rits,

11.
Consequently, pending application(s), if any,
stand disposed of accordingly.
( Rak esh Th apliy al, J.) ( Vipin San gh i, C.J.
0 1 .0 5 .2 0 2 3
0 1 .0 5.2 0 2 3
Rahul

also
)

Bhupendra Singh Gusai v. Chairman and Managing Director Power Grid Corproration of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra Singh Gusai v. Chairman and Managing Director Power Grid Corproration of India

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

Achpal Singh Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Shivam Mines and Minerals Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shivam Mines and Minerals Vs State of Uttarkhand

Mayank Bhardwaj Vs State of Uttarakhand

Annu Mehta Vs Principal Secretaty Urban Development Department Government of Uttarakhand

Dilbagh Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand