Delhi High Court
Genex Industries Limited vs Union Of India And Anr. on 19 March, 2018
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.3.2018
+ W.P.(C) 2550/2018
GENEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shubhankar Sengupta, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Vniyal with Mr. Dhawal
Vniyal, Advs. for R-1.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
%
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL)
CM No.10535/2018
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 2550/2018
2. The substantive prayers made in the suit is as follows:
"Call for the records of the Respondent and issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction,
directing the Respondent to restitute to the petitioner the sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) from the date of deposit being
sometime in July, 2000 till date together with interest @ 18% per
annum;"
3. The relief sought by the petitioner is in the following broad facts:
3.1 The petitioner was awarded a contract for wool combing and allied works.
His contract contained job work and the same was awarded to the petitioner on
2.3.2000. According to the petitioner, in terms of the contract, the bank guarantee
dated 14.3.2000 in the sum of Rs.2 lakhs was furnished to respondent No.2. It
appears that respondent No.2 was not satisfied with the job work performed by the
W.P.(C) No.2550 of 2018 Pg. 1 of 3
petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No.2, on 25.5.2000, called upon the petitioner
to replace the material. The petitioner disputed the stand taken by respondent
No.2. This resulted in respondent No.2 invoking the bank guarantee furnished by
the petitioner. Respondent No.2 consequently encashed the bank guarantee
furnished by it. It appears that the petitioner being aggrieved and filed a suit
before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana. This suit was filed on
19.7.2000. The petitioner's suit, however, was dismissed. It appears that the
learned Civil Judge while dismissing the suit took the view that it did not have
jurisdiction to deal with the matter and at the same time, decided the matter on
merits.
3.2 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to
the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. Vide judgment dated 28.3.2014, the
learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana allowed the petitioner's appeal
primarily on the ground that once the Court came to the conclusion that it has no
jurisdiction, the Court ought not have decided the matter on merits. Consequently,
a direction was issued that the petitioner's plaint should be returned.
3.3 The petitioner, however, chose not to pursue the action any further. In the
interregnum, on 29.7.2000, respondent No.2 had instituted a suit in this Court.
This suit was numbered as CS(OS) 1706 of 2000. Via this suit, respondent No.1
claimed damages against the petitioner in a sum of Rs.13,80,725/-.
3.4 A perusal of the plaint shows that while calculating the damages, a sum of
Rs.2 lakhs which had been received by respondent No.2 by encashing bank
guarantee furnished by the petitioner was suitably adjusted. However, this suit of
respondent No.2, on account of enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of this
Court, was transferred to the District Court. The suit upon transfer was, however,
dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.8.2017 by Additional District Judge
(West), Tis Hazari.
3.5 Counsel for the petitioner says that in these circumstances, the petitioner
W.P.(C) No.2550 of 2018 Pg. 2 of 3
has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition.
4. According to me, prima facie, writ petition for pure refund would not lie.
Reasons for the same would be that there could be several defences that
respondent No.2 may want to raise, if a suit was instituted. Mr. Shubhankar
Sengupta, who appears for the petitioner, says that at this stage, he would like to
obtain a limited direction qua respondent No.2 that the writ petition should be
treated as a representation which respondent No.2 would deliberate upon and pass
a speaking order.
5. In my view, this direction can be issued. Accordingly, writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to treat this writ petition as a
representation and pass a speaking order thereon in accordance with law.
Needless to say that respondent No.2 will carry out this exercise, though not later
than 10 weeks from today.
6. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
MARCH 19, 2018/pmc
W.P.(C) No.2550 of 2018 Pg. 3 of 3
