Bombay High Court
M/S Singh And Sons ... vs The Chairman / Managing Director, ... on 8 March, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
ao76.15.J.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO.76 OF 2015
M/s Singh & Sons Govt. Mining,
Civil & Transport, Contractors,
Singh Nagar, Dahegaon (R),
Chhindwara Road, Tahsil Saoner,
Dist. Nagpur - 441113 (MS)
through Shri Arunkumar s/o Ramraksha
Singh, Aged 58 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Dahegaon (R), Chhindwara Road,
Tahsil Saoner, Dist. Nagpur - 44113.
ig ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] The Chairman/Managing Director,
Western Coal Fields Limited,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2] General Manager (Civil),
Western Coal Fields Limited,
Nagpur.
3] General Manager,
Nagar Area, Western Coal Fields
Limited, Nagpur. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.R. Wagh, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri C.S. Samudra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE: 8 th
MARCH, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Admit.
2] Heard finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing
ao76.15.J.odt 2/3
for the parties.
3] The claim for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,36,65,156.24
arising out of the contract between the parties is the subject-matter of
Special Civil Suit No.530 of 2013. Similarly, the challenge is to the
recovery of Rs.62,76,000/- by the respondents - defendants is also the
subject-matter of challenge in this suit. If the plaintiff succeeds in the
suit, the defendants will have to refund the amount of Rs.62,76,000/-, if
they have proposed to deduct it from the amount due and payable under
the bills of this contract with the plaintiff, as well as from the bills of the
other contractors of the plaintiff.
4] The trial court has by impugned order dated 29.01.2015,
rejected the prayer for grant of temporary injunction restraining the
defendants from recovering the said amount of Rs.62,76,000/-, and the
reasons are recorded in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the order impugned.
The Court has held that plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie
case, and the balance of convenience will also not lie in favour of the
plaintiff, and the question of causing irreparable loss to the plaintiff will
not arise, if an order of injunction is refused. I have gone through the
reasons recorded by the trial court, and I do not find any infirmity in the
findings recorded on prima facie assessment of the case.
ao76.15.J.odt 3/3
5] Shri Samudra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that out of total amount of Rs.62,76,000/-, the
balance of Rs.38,35,501/- remains to be recovered, and the process is
going on. In order to balance the equities, the respondent will have to be
put to certain terms while maintaining the order of the trial court
rejecting the application for grant of temporary injunction.
The transaction in question is a commercial transaction, and in the event
if the plaintiff succeeds in his challenge to the deduction of an amount of
Rs.62,76,000/-, then the respondent - defendants will have to refund the
said amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the
date of its deduction till its repayment to the plaintiff. The order passed
by the trial court, is therefore, modified accordingly, and the parties are
therefore, put on such notice.
6] The appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order in
aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
NSN
