Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
The Jk Dairy Producers vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 March, 2021
Serial No. 110
Admission Cause List
Of 22.03.2021
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
RP No.19/2021 c/w
WP(C) No. 1870/2020
The JK Dairy Producers, Processors & Marketing Cooperative Union Ltd.
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr A. H. Naik, Senior Advocate with
Mr Shabir Ahmad, Advocate.
V/s
Union of India & Ors.
... Respondent(s)
Through: -
Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, ASGI.
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey, Judge.
(ORDER)
23.03.2021
RP No.19/2021:
Mr A. H. Naik, Senior Advocate with Mr Shabir Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, ASGI for the respondent(s).
01. Instant review petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking
review of the judgment dated 2nd of March, 2021, as passed in OWP
No.1503/2014, insofar as the judgment makes reference to some contents of
the pleadings which are factually incorrect thus, falling within the scope of
error apparent on the face of the record.
02. Mr A. H. Naik, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, while inviting the attention of the Court to Paragraph No.02
TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT
2021.03.23 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RP No.19/2021 c/w
WP(C) No.1870/2020
of the judgment (supra), submitted that the petitioner had not based his claim
for rate revision in vogue since 2007 till 1st of April, 2014, as has been
observed by this Court. Instead, as stated, the petitioner had raised the claim
for revision of rate on the basis of the policy notified by the respondents in
this behalf in January, 2005 and May, 2010. It is further submitted that having
observed as such, this Court finally disposed of the petition filed by the
petitioner by giving liberty to the petitioner to seek reference of disputes to
the Arbitrator strictly in accordance with the mandate of 'Arbitration Clause'
stipulated in the agreement governing the relationship of the parties, which
course of action, as per the learned Senior Counsel, if allowed, will definitely
have the result of defeating the claim made by the petitioner in the light of the
policy issued by the respondents in January, 2005 and May, 2010. Mr Naik
has also made reference to paragraph No.10 of the judgment dated 26th of
March, 2018 delivered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in OWP
No.1076/2017 c/w OWP No.1075/2017 to demonstrate that the aforesaid
policies, reference whereof is made by the petitioner, have already been
discussed and admitted by the other side. In this backdrop, the learned Senior
Counsel contends that this aspect of the matter is required to be taken note of
and the judgment dated 2nd of March, 2021 reviewed, accordingly.
03. Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, the learned Assistant Solicitor General
of India (ASGI), representing the respondents, would submit that there is no
error, muchless an error apparent on the face of the record, having crept in the
judgment rendered by this Court in OWP No.1503/2014, as would warrant its
TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT
2021.03.23 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RP No.19/2021 c/w
WP(C) No.1870/2020
recall on review. It is pleaded that this Court has considered the claim of the
petitioner in true and correct perspective after appreciating the pleadings on
record.
04. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, coupled with a
perusal of the pleadings on record, what emerges is that the claim of the
petitioner for rate revision was not only based on the terms and conditions
stipulated in the agreement governing the relationship of the parties, but was
also based on the policy formulated by the respondents in January, 2005 and
May, 2010. However, in the judgment under review, this Court has recorded
that the claim of the petitioner qua rate revision is only governed by the
conditions of the contract agreement governing the relationship of the parties
and has, on such opinion, granted liberty to the petitioner to agitate the
disputes before the Arbitrator in accordance with the mandate of the
'Arbitration Clause' stipulated in the agreement governing the relationship
between the parties. This observation as well as the consequent direction, as
aforesaid, amounts to factual error having crept in the judgment which is
required to be reviewed. Accordingly, the instant review petition is allowed
and the observation recorded by the Court qua claim of the petitioner for rate
revision being based only on the terms and conditions of the agreement
between the parties is recalled. Consequently, the operative portion of the
judgment dated 2nd of March, 2021 (paragraph No.11) is hereby redrawn as
under:
TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT
2021.03.23 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RP No.19/2021 c/w
WP(C) No.1870/2020
"11. For all that has been said and done hereinabove, the instant
petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek reference of
disputes, as raised herein this petition, to the Arbitrator, strictly in
accordance with the mandate of 'Arbitration Clause' stipulated in the
agreement governing the relationship of the parties as well as the polices
formulated by the respondents in January, 2005 and May, 2010. The time
period, started right from the date of filing of the Writ petition till one month
from today (date of decision in this review petition), shall be excluded for
purpose of limitation, if any."
05. Review petition disposed of as above.
06. This order shall form part of judgment dated 2nd of March, 2021
passed in OWP No.1503/2014.
WP(C) No.1870/2020; CM No.5647/2020:
Mr A. H. Naik, Senior Advocate with Mr Shabir Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr Tahir Majid Shamsi, ASGI for the respondent(s).
07. Mr Naik, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner,
submits that the controversy involved in the instant case is akin to the one
already set at naught by this Court in the judgment dated 2nd of March, 2021
passed in OWP No.1503/2014, followed by decision rendered in the review
petition bearing RP No.19/2021 hereinabove, therefore, the present petition
may also be disposed of on the same lines.
08. When asked, Mr Shamsi, the learned Assistant Solicitor General
of India (ASGI), representing the respondents, submits that he has no
TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT
2021.03.23 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RP No.19/2021 c/w
WP(C) No.1870/2020
objection in case the present Writ petition is disposed of in terms of the
judgment dated 2nd of March, 2021 passed in OWP No.1503/2014.
09. Given the above position, and with the consensus of the learned
counsel for the parties, this petition, along-with the connected CM, shall also
stand disposed of on the same lines as stipulated in judgment dated 2nd of
March, 2021 passed in OWP No.1503/2014, followed by decision in RP
No.19/2021.
10. Registry to place a copy of this file on each connected file.
(Ali Mohammad Magrey)
Judge
SRINAGAR
March 23rd, 2021
"TAHIR"
TAHIR MANZOOR BHAT
2021.03.23 17:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
