Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jhoke Mohre Co-Op L&C Society Ltd vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 November, 2009

Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


                   Civil Writ Petition No.18165 of 2009
                   Date of decision: 27th November, 2009

Jhoke Mohre Co-op L&C Society Ltd.
                                                                  ... Petitioner
                                   Versus
State of Punjab and others
                                                               ... Respondents


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Present:     Mr. R. K. Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner.


KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner claims that respondents had issued a work order and in pursuance of that he had executed the work to the satisfaction of the respondents but due to acute shortage of funds, payment has not been made to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither there is any defect in the work executed nor any legal impediment in the release of funds.

Issue notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Two copies of the petition have been supplied to him.

The present writ petition is disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to release admitted payment to the petitioner, if there is no legal impediment, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the amount due at the rate of 8% per annum. The interest shall be calculated from the date of amount due till the final payment is made. In case Civil Writ Petition No. 18165 of 2009 2 respondents find that the petitioner is not entitled to the payment, they may pass a speaking order detailing the grounds on which the petitioner is not entitled to the payment.

With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of.

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 27, 2009 rps