Nirmal Associates P Ltd Through Its ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 23702 Bom

Bombay High Court

Nirmal Associates P Ltd Through Its ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 12 August, 2024

Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge

Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge

2024:BHC-AUG:18368-DB


                                                                   32-WP-8419-2024.odt




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 8419 OF 2024

                  NIRMAL ASSOCIATES P LTD THROUGH ITS PARTNER ARVIND
                                       GOVIND DESHPANDE
                                              VERSUS
                    THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL
                                    SECRETARY AND ANOTHER
                                                 ....
                 Mr. H. H. Padalkar, Advocate for the Petitioner
                 Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent No.1 - State
                 Mr. Vishal Bagal, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                                 ....

                                     CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
                                             Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 12.08.2024 PER COURT :-

1. The Petitioner is a partnership firm, which undertook

work for the Nagar Parishad, Partur in a scheme known as the

"Shahar Bhuyari Gatar Yojana". The work was commenced under

the scheme in 2012 and concluded in the year 2023-2024, is the

contention of the Petitioner. Representations are tendered on

03.10.2023, 20.11.2023 and 08.02.2024, seeking recovery of the

unpaid bills of the Petitioner.

                                                                                1 of 2
                                     (( 2 ))            32-WP-8419-2024

2. The learned Advocate for the Municipal Council submits

that the bills raised by the Petitioner, are disputed by the Council and

the Petitioner has a remedy to approach an Arbitrator in the light of

Clause-8 of the terms and conditions of agreement dated 23.11.2012

(Annexure-II).

3. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

cautioned the High Court that it should not be a recovery agent, more

so for private contractors. Considering the law laid down in the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner

(CT LTU), Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer

Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681, merely because the

limitation for filing a recovery suit has expired, would not mean that

this Court would get the jurisdiction to enlarge the limitation under

it's Writ jurisdiction.

4. In view of the above, we are not exercising our Writ

jurisdiction with regard to the recovery of the unpaid bills of a private

contractor. This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed.

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ] SMS

2 of 2