Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Others vs M/S Vikas Rice Mills on 13 May, 2010
Author: Ajay Tewari
Bench: Ajay Tewari
RSA No. 1818 of 2010(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CM Nos. 5640-41-C of 2010 and
RSA No. 1818 of 2010(O&M)
Date of Decision: May 13, 2010
State of Punjab and others ...... Appellants
Versus
M/s Vikas Rice Mills ...... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill,DAG,Punjab
for the appellants.
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Ajay Tewari, J.
CM No. 5641-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, delay of 5 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
CM No. 5640-C of 2010 For the reasons recorded, delay of 14 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
RSA No. 1818 of 2010 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- odd on account of interest on the delayed payment as well as on account of a recovery allegedly illegally made from the respondent RSA No. 1818 of 2010(O&M) 2 for milling the rice.
The suit was resisted primarily on two grounds. One was that the appellants had taken rice on behalf of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and, since payment was received late from the FCI, therefore, it was the case of the appellants that they were not liable to make the payment. The second ground was that the recovery made on the basis of circular was justified. As regards the first plea both the Courts found that the appellants had not been able to establish any case of delayed payment from FCI rather in many such cases interest was granted after the intervention of this Court. With regard to the second plea both the Courts found that firstly the circular on the basis of which recovery was made was issued only in the year 2000 and did not have the retrospective effect The following question has been proposed:-
i) Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount from appellant-defendant while an agreement executed between the parties?
It would be seen that this is a general question. Learned DAG has not been able to how to me how the findings recorded on it are vitiated.
Consequently holding the question proposed against the appellants, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 13, 2010 sunita