Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Itarsi Agro Overseas vs M.P. State Co Operative Marketing ... on 29 April, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19670
1 WP-9342-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 9342 of 2024
M/S ITARSI AGRO OVERSEAS
Versus
M.P. STATE CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Utkarsh Agrawal - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Yashovardhan Jain - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India making a prayer to quash impugned order dated 23.02.2024.
2. It is submitted by counsel appearing for petitioner that by said order, recovery is being made from securities which have been given by petitioner for milling of paddy for kharif season 2022-23. It is submitted that recovery is in respect of lots of which petitioner has already discharged the contract for kharif season 2021. It is submitted that since petitioner has completed the contract to the satisfaction of respondents, he has been discharged and security furnished by him for completion of work has already been returned to him, therefore, now respondents cannot recover amount for contract of kharif season 2021 from securities Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 30-04-2025 15:16:31 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19670 2 WP-9342-2024 which are given in respect of contract for 2022-23. Same is illegal and without jurisdiction, therefore, order be quashed.
3. Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that petitioner is having alternate remedy to file an arbitration case if he is aggrieved by the order. No interference is called for by this Court.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court reported in (2009) 1 SCC 267, National Insurance Company Limited vs Boghara Polyfab Private Limited. In paragraph 25 of the said judgment, it has been held that whether the contract has been discharged by performance or not is a mixed question of fact and law, and if there is dispute in regard to that question is arbitrable. But there is an exception when both parties to a contract confirm in writing that contract has been fully and finally discharged by performance of all obligations and there are no outstanding claims or disputes, courts will not refer any subsequent claim or dispute to arbitration. In this case also, contract has been concluded. Security has been returned to petitioner in respect of milling of paddy for kharif season 2021. Therefore, petitioner do not have any alternate remedy. Respondents cannot recover any amount for contract of 2021 from securities deposited for contract of 2022-23.
6. In view of same, petition filed by petitioner is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.02.2025 passed by respondent No.2, contained in Annexure P/12 is quashed. Respondents are at liberty to recover the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 30-04-2025 15:16:31 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:19670 3 WP-9342-2024 amount by legal means, which is available to them. It is further directed that securities for kharif season 2022-23 be returned to petitioner, if petitioner has been discharged from said contract and contract has been concluded to the satisfaction of the respondents.
7. C.C. as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE vkt Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Signing time: 30-04-2025 15:16:31