Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Patel Engineering Ltd. vs State Of M.P.. on 8 September, 2015
Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6931 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.24748 of 2011)
Patel Engineering Ltd. & Ors. … Appellants
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors. … Respondents
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned senior counsel for the respondents.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should not have entered into the realm of disputed questions of fact and thereafter record a number of findings against the appellants. Such an approach is not permissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
On a query being made, learned counsel for the parties very fairly stated that there is no arbitration clause.
Mr. Tankha, learned senior counsel would submit that the appellant is interested to make a representation to the State Government with fresh facts so that the State Government would be Signature Not Verified made aware of all the details and thereafter may change its view Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2015.09.17 17:26:03 IST or Reason: mindset but the same may not be possible if the findings recorded by the High Court are upheld. In our considered view, 2 the submission put forth by learned counsel for the appellants is absolutely fair and there can be no cavil over the same.
In view of the aforesaid, the order rendered by the High Court is set aside and liberty is granted to the appellants to make a representation with details within a period of six weeks hence. The same shall be disposed of by the competent authority of the State Government or, if necessary, by constituting a Committee within a period of eight weeks after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants’ representative or representatives. Be it noted, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the appellants. Needless to say, the competent authority or the committee to be constituted shall consider the matter afresh without being influenced by any view that is taken earlier.
With the aforesaid liberty and direction, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
.....................,J.
(Dipak Misra) .....................,J.
(Prafulla C. Pant) New Delhi;
September 08, 2015.
3ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.5 SECTION IVA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 24748/2011
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24/08/2011 in WP No. 4374/2010 passed by the High Court Of M.p At Gwalior) PATEL ENGINEERING LTD.& ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P.& ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for directions and stay of the cancellation of the entire re-development project on behalf of the petitioner and interim relief and office report) (For Finial Disposal) Date : 08/09/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Adv.
Mr. T. Mahipal,Adv.
Mr. R. L. Sood, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arjun Lal, Adv.
Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Kaustuv P. Pathak Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Annam D. N. Rao,Adv.
Mr. Sudipto Sircar, Adv.
Ms. Vaishali R. Adv.
Ms. Neelam Jain, Adv.
Ms. Ankita Chadha, Adv.
Ms. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.
Mr. B. S. Banthia,Adv.
Mr. Pramod Swarup, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dhirendra Singh Parmar, Adv. Mr. C. D. Singh,Adv.
4Mr. Nair Renjith Ramesh, Adv.
Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Jitendra Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Mishra Saurabh,Adv.
Mr. Pramod Dayal,Adv.
Mr. Vinay Kuthyala, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Divya Roy, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master