Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

M/S.Pareek Power Pvt.Ltd. vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 February, 2009

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                     W.P.(C) No.4734 of 2002

           M/s Pareek Power Pvt. Ltd.                        Petitioner
                               Vrs.
           The State of Bihar & Ors                          Respondents

           CORAM :       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR SINHA

           For the petitioner :         Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh
           For respondent No.2:         Mr. Rajesh Kumar
           For the respondents :        Mr. S.P. Roy (G.A.,Bihar) &
                                        Ms. Vandana Bharti, J.C. to G.A.
                       ----------------
11/17.02.2009

The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:-

(i) For issuance of an appropriate direction and/or order directing the Respondent No.2 to release the payment of the legally admissible dues of the petitioner amounting to Rs.65,03,854.00 against the works executed by the petitioner in respect of the Sadani Hydro Electric Project as per Agreement No.02/Elec/97-98 dated 22.7.97/24.1.97 entered into with the Bihar State Hydro Electric Corporation, Respondent No.2

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate direction and/or order for release of the Bank guarantees of Rs.45 lakhs submitted by the petitioner and renewed from time to time with the Respondent No.2 Corporation against release of equal amount of mobilization advance of Rs.45.00 lakhs for execution of the works after adjustment of the said advance against the Bills due for payment to the petitioner for the works executed by him under different heads in the Sadani Hydro Electric Project amounting to a total of Rs.65,03,854.00 pending with the Respondent No.2 I am informed that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement and at the same time it is a case purely in the private law field arising out of the claim with regard to the dues for the works done by the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate, if so advised, for the petitioner to seek appropriate alternative remedy. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the liberty aforesaid.

The counsel for the petitioner further submits that at least if the respondents are not disputing the claim, they can consider the payment of admissible dues.

It goes without saying that if the dues are admitted the same can be paid to the petitioner in accordance with law.

(Ajit Kumar Sinha,J.) NKC