M/S Seth Banshidhar Kedia Paddy Private ... vs Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative ... on 13 November, 2018

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

M/S Seth Banshidhar Kedia Paddy Private ... vs Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative ... on 13 November, 2018

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                 1

                                                             NAFR

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        WPC No. 2511 of 2018

    M/s Seth Banshidhar Kedia Paddy Private Limited, Having Its
     Office At Kedia Gram, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar
     Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. Through Its Proprietor Pramod Kedia,
     Aged About 58 Years, S/o Late Abirchand Kedia, R/o Kedia Gram,
     Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.,

                                                 --- Petitioner

                              Versus

   1. Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd
      Raipur, Through Its Managing Director, 6th Floor, Tower C,
      Commercial Complex, C.B.D. Sector-21, New Raipur, District
      Raipur Chhattisgarh

   2. District Marketing Office, Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Through
      District Marketing Officer, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, District
      Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

   3. Collector Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar
      Bhatapara Chhattisgarh

                                                    ---- Respondent

For Petitioner Mr. Vishnu Koshta and Mr. Shobhit Koshta Advocates For Respondents 1 & 2 Mr. Prafull Bharat, Advocate For Respondent No.3 Mrs. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer Order On Board By Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 13/11/2018

1. Heard.

2. The dispute brought before this Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for payment of 2 incentive under clause 9 of the Custom Milling Agreement between the parties.

3. The petitioner approached this Court in WPC No.1469 of 2018, when the Mark-Fed was not deciding the petitioner's representation despite communication -Annexure P/7 by the Collector. In the said writ petition, the Mark-Fed was directed to take a decision as per the directions given by the Collector within a period of 3 weeks. Thereafter, the Mark-Fed has rejected the petitioner's representation.

4. Section 15 of the Agreement provides that in case of any dispute concerning any clause of the Agreement, the same shall be resolved by Mediation by the Collector and the decision taken by the Collector shall be binding on the parties.

5. In view of the express stipulation in the Agreement, let the petitioner move before the concerned Collector within a period of one month from today. The Collector shall thereafter decide the dispute after hearing and in presence of both the parties within next 3 months.

6. The writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/-

(Prashant Kumar Mishra) Judge Shyna

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court