Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan vs Serve Shree Kuber Kamna Marbles Private ... on 25 March, 2019
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 977/2018
State Of Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
Serve Shree Kuber Kamna Marbles Private Limited
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG with Mr. S.K. Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Order 25/03/2019 Application No.18428/2019 has been filed for modification/clarification in the order dated 6th February, 2019.
It is contended that in last three lines of para 2 at page 6 of the aforesaid order, it has been mentioned that "the security amount deposited by the respondents in all these cases is approximately half of the total amount of recovery", whereas the security amount is deposited by the petitioners-respondents in all the matters is about 12.5% of the original contract amount, which is very meager looking to the enhanced amount of the revised demand.
It is also contended that this Court in para 3 at page 6 of the order dated 6th February, 2019 has directed that the appellants shall not enforce the demand against the respondents but it has come to be inadvertently mentioned that the respondents shall be entitled to claim refund of the security till the disposal of the appeals, though the later part, the Court intended (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 08:33:36 AM) (2 of 2) [SAW-977/2018] to direct that the respondents shall "not" be entitled to claim refund of the security till the disposal of the appeals. However, inadvertently the word "not" has been omitted to be placed between the words "the respondents shall" and "be entitled", which means that it should be "the respondents shall not be entitled to claim refund of the security till the disposal of the appeals".
Having regard to the fact aforesaid, there appears to be an error in the aforesaid order and therefore para 2 & 3 at page 6 of the aforesaid order shall now be read as under:-
"Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that consent was not intended to be given and it appears that there was some communication gap. It is submitted that the security amount as deposited by the respondents in all these cases is about 12.5% of the original contract amount".
"Having regard to the facts aforesaid, it is directed that the appellants shall not enforce the demand against the respondents and the respondents shall not be entitled to claim refund the security till the disposal of the appeals."
The application No.18428/2019 is accordingly allowed. The matter be listed for final hearing on 10.04.2019. (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J Manish/RS/11 (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 08:33:36 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)