Gauhati High Court
M/S. Modern Construction Co. And Anr vs The National Small Industries ... on 14 March, 2019
Author: Arup Kumar Goswami
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010111922018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 3453/2018
1:M/S. MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. AND ANR.
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND PRINCIPLE PLACE
OF BUSINESS AT RADHAKUNJ, NEAR AMDC LTD., JANAPRIYA PATH,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 (ASSAM) AND IS REPRESENTED BY ITS
PARTNER, SRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWALLA
2: RAJ KUMAR AGARWALLA
S/O LATE PURANMAL AGARWALLA
R/O RADHAKUNJ
NEAR AMDC LTD.
JANAPRIYA PATH
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-781006 (ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD. AND 4 ORS.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NSIC BHAWAN, NEAR OKHLA
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110020 AND HAVING ONE OF ITS
ZONAL OFFICE AT 3RD BYE LANE, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
BAMUNIMAIDAN, GUWAHATI-781021, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, AND IS
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR
2:THE SR. MANAGER
NSIC LIMITED
ZONAL OFFICE AT 3RD BYE LANE
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
BAMUNIMAIDAN
GUWAHATI-781021
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM
PUBLIC ROADS DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PWD (ROADS)
ASSAM
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-3
5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PWD (BORDER ROADS AND NEC WORSK)
ASSAM CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI
ORDER
14.03.2019 Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.J. Barman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Mr. Vinod Vyas, Senior Branch Manager of NSIC, Guwahati, is also personally present and is heard.
Mr. Barman submits that the petitioner has not complied with the direction of this Court dated 20.08.2018 passed in I.A.(Civil) No.2930/2018.
Mr. Roy, however, submits that though the entire amount could not be liquidated, there is no outstanding for a period more than 360 days and, therefore, in terms of the agreement, the account of the petitioner is regular.
Mr. Vyas has submitted that there is a guideline of Reserve Bank of India requiring making of provision in the books of account in case outstanding on any account is more than 210 days. However, the document is not produced before the Court.
Page No.# 3/3 It appears that as of today, the balance amount for more than 210 days but less than 360 days is Rs.1,50,52,099.42 and it is submitted by Mr. Vyas that by 31.03.2019 the amount will be Rs.2.10 crores approximately, if no further payment is made by the petitioner.
Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will try his utmost to pay a sum of Rs.2 crores by 29.03.2019.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is considered appropriate to direct listing of this case on 29.03.2019.
It is expected that by then the petitioner will pay the amount indicated by Mr. Roy.
On the next date fixed, the RBI guideline shall be produced by the respondents.
Sd/-
JUDGE Comparing Assistant