Hindustan Udyog Ltd vs N.P. Narain
2021 Latest Caselaw 12427 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           CONTC No.641 of 2016

        Hindustan Udyog Ltd.                  ....         Petitioner
                                    Mr. Chinmay Choudhury, Advocate
                                     -versus-
        N.P. Narain                           ....    Opposite Party
                                                    None


                        CORAM:
                        JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
                        JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

                                      ORDER (Oral)

03.12.2021 Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. It transpires that the petitioner was awarded a contract pursuant to the tender notice dated 10.12.2004 floated by Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL) for supply of Trunk Belt and Pony Conveyors. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.13264 of 2007 challenging the action of the MCL in invoking the Price Fall Clause contained in the terms and conditions governing the contract. It also questioned the recovery of excess payments made and also the disallowance of its balance amount of 20% of the price of the supplies made.

3. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 04.09.2015 in terms of the judgment rendered on 25.09.2014 in the identical matter rendered in W.P.(C) No.12934 of 2007, whereby the opposite party was directed to reconsider the issue based on the material placed on record within four weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard. To a pointed query, he states that he has no instructions as // 2 //

to whether any Arbitration Proceedings were invoked or not although it cannot be disputed that the issue raised in the writ petition would have squarely fallen within the scope of substantial dispute between the parties. Be that as it may, there was already a Chartered Engineer's Report on record stating that the goods supplied by the petitioner were not identical to another set of goods wherein the said clause of Price Fall Clause was attracted.

5. In view of the factual dispute and no instructions provided by the counsel, we find there is no willful disobedience so as to provide a basis for us to pursue the present contempt.

6. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.

(Jaswant Singh) Judge

(S.K. Panigrahi) Judge AKK