M/S Western India Genuine Ghee Co. ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3412 Del

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Date of decision: 18th July, 2011.

+                           W.P.(C) No.2493/2010

%        M/S WESTERN INDIA GENUINE GHEE
         CO. (P) LTD.                                ..... Petitioner
                      Through: Mr. S.K. Chaturvedi, Adv.

                                      Versus

         UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                               ..... Respondents
                      Through:            Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Ashish
                                          Kumar Srivastava & Mr. Kunal
                                          Kahol, Advocates for UOI.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may               Not necessary
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?              Not necessary

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported             Not necessary
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner claiming to be a Small Scale Industry, claims to be

exempted from payment of security deposit under a contract for supply of

goods. This writ petition has been filed claiming reliefs of amendment of

the tender enquiry, payment of amounts withheld by the respondents out of

the payments due to the petitioner for the reason of non-payment of security

deposit, initiating disciplinary proceedings against concerned officials of the

respondents etc. The writ petition was vide order dated 16 th April, 2010

disposed of on the very first date with liberty to the petitioner to make a

representation to the respondents and with direction to the respondents to

take a decision on the said representation and with liberty to the petitioner to

seek appropriate remedies if remains aggrieved. The petitioner thereafter

applied for revival of the petition on the ground that no decision was taken

on its representation. The writ petition was permitted to be so revived on

12th July, 2010 and notice thereof issued and pleadings have been completed.

2. The contract for supply of goods has since been executed with the

goods thereunder having been delivered. Now, the only question is of

release of `36,745/- admittedly payable by the respondents to the petitioner

and which have been withheld for the reason of the petitioner having not

made security deposit for the said amount under the contract. It has been

enquired from the counsel for the respondents whether the respondents have

any claim against the petitioner under the contract, for withholding the

security deposit. The answer is in the negative. The counsel for the

respondents however states that the release of the said sum of `36,745/- is

held up for the reason of the petitioner having not issued 'No Dues

Certificate' demanded from the petitioner.

3. The counsel for the respondents has however otherwise challenged the

very maintainability of the writ petition. It is contended that the petitioner

had filed two other writ petitions also viz. W.P.(C) Nos.11136-37/2009 and

W.P.(C) No.9666/2009 with respect to other contracts contemporaneously

placed on the petitioner and which both writ petitions were held to be not

maintainable for the reason of the dispute being purely contractual and for

the reason of existence of arbitration clause in the agreements. He contends

that the position with respect to this writ petition is the same and the same is

liable to be dismissed.

4. After considerable arguments, it has been agreed that the statement of

the petitioner through counsel to the effect that the petitioner has no claims

against the respondents against the contract subject matter of this writ

petition be recorded and the same be treated by the respondents as a 'No

Dues Certificate' and the respondents within three weeks, release the sum of

`36,745/- to the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner has stated that the

petitioner has no claims against the respondents with respect to the

contract/tender subject matter of this writ petition and this order may be

treated as a 'No Dues Certificate' demanded by the respondents as a

condition for release of the sum of `36,745/-.

5. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the respondents to

within three weeks hereof pay a sum of `36,745/- to the petitioner; if the

amount is not paid within the said time, the same shall incur interest at the

rate of 10% per annum from the expiry of three weeks and till the date of

payment, besides other remedies of petitioner.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) JULY 18, 2011 bs (corrected and released on 28th July, 2011)