Chattisgarh High Court
Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
Digitally
signed by
YOGESH
YOGESH TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.03.25
18:44:17
+0530 1/3
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 750 of 2021
NIPRO MEDICAL INDIA PVT. LTD. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
WPC/2846/2021
Order Sheet
25.03.2026 Ms. Saloni Jain, Mr. Abhishek Purohit and Mr. Pushp Kumar
Gupta, Advocates for the respective petitioners.
Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate and Mr. Sourabh Kale,
Advocate on behalf of Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate for the
respective respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in WPC No.750/2021 submits that the present petition has been filed against the inaction of the respondent authorities in withholding the legitimate dues of the petitioner without raising any dispute with regard to the invoices. It is submitted that pursuant to a valid rate contract, the 2/3 petitioner supplied medical equipment to the State authorities and raised invoices amounting to ₹11,27,84,000/-, out of which only about 56% has been paid, leaving an outstanding amount of ₹5,00,33,500/-. It is further submitted that despite repeated requests and reminders, the respondents have failed to release the remaining amount, and such action is arbitrary, contrary to the terms of the contract, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present petition has been preferred seeking appropriate directions for payment of the outstanding dues.
From the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, it transpires that the present matter pertains to a dispute arising out of a tender/Rate Contract, under which the petitioner had supplied medical equipment to the respondent authorities. According to the petitioner in WPC No.750/2021, invoices amounting to ₹11,27,84,000/- were raised, out of which only about 56% has been paid, and an amount of ₹5,00,33,500/- remains outstanding, despite there being no dispute raised with regard to the invoices by the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No.2 and respondent No.3.
In light of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in WPC No.2154/2025, vide order dated 06.05.2025, it appears that the matter is required to be placed before the 3/3 appropriate Bench having the relevant roster, especially considering that the dispute pertains to contractual obligations arising from supply under a Rate Contract.
Considering the aforesaid aspects, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions, in terms of the order dated 06.05.2025 passed in WPC No. 2154/2025.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh