The Managing Director, Bihar State Food ... vs M/S Guptaji Brothers Rice Mill Pvt
2026 Latest Caselaw 294 Patna

Patna High Court

The Managing Director, Bihar State Food ... vs M/S Guptaji Brothers Rice Mill Pvt on 4 February, 2026

Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     COMMERCIAL APPEAL No.11 of 2024
     ======================================================
1.    The Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation
      Ltd. Khadya Bhawan, R. Block, Patna.
2.   The District Manager, The Bihar State of Food and Civil Supplies
     Corporation, District Rohtas.
                                                               ... ... Appellants
                                      Versus
1.   M/s Guptaji brothers Rice Mill Pvt. Registered Office at Bank, through its
     Director Sri Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, Son of Ganesh Prasad Gupta resident of
     New Sidhauli, Dalmianagar, District Rohtas.
2.   The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna.
3.   The District Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram.
                                               ... ... Respondents
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Appellants      :     Mr. Anjani Kumar, Senior Advocate
                                   Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
     For the Respondent State:     Mr. S.Raza Ahmad, Senior Advocate, AAG-5
     For the Respondent No.1:      Mr. Jai Vardhan Narayan, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
             and
             HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
     ORAL JUDGMENT
     (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

      Date : 04-02-2026


                 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                 2. The matter has been heard at length. There are some

     peculiar facts of the case. After passing of the award, which is

     under execution, the respondent No.1 has entered into a kind of

     settlement with the appellants. In this regard, the affidavits of the

     respondent No.1 have been placed before this Court. It has also

     been informed that the respondent No.1 had deposited a sum of

     Rs.78,00,000.00 approximately with the appellants and has
 Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.11 of 2024 dt.04-02-2026
                                          2/3




       obtained no objection certificate in order to restore its business

       with the appellants.

                   3.    Keeping     in    view    these      peculiar   facts   and

       circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits

       that for the present respondent No.1 would not press the execution

       case being Execution Case No. 150 of 2023 pending before the

       Court of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Rohtas at

       Sasaram, and shall await the decision of the competent court on

       the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

       Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') preferred by

       the appellants.

                   4. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the

       appellants, submits that the appellants have challenged the award

       before the competent court giving rise to Miscellaneous Case No.

       101 of 2019 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior

       Division)-I, Civil Court, Patna. The next date fixed in the matter is

       21.02.2026

. The respondent No.1 has already entered appearance

in the said case, therefore, on the next date, he will make a request

to the court to hear and dispose of the application under Section 34

of the Act of 1996 at the earliest.

5. Mr. Jai Vardhan Narayan, learned counsel for

respondent No.1, submits that he will cooperate in hearing of the

matter before the court.

Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.11 of 2024 dt.04-02-2026

6. Mr. Jai Vardhan Narayan, Advocate, has brought to

the notice of this Court that only because the respondent No.1 has

filed the execution case, despite having a no objection certificate

in its hand, his firm is not being considered for tagging.

7. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel

representing the appellants, submits on the instructions of Mr.

Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate, that if the respondent No.1 is

otherwise entitled to be considered, he shall not be deprived of the

tagging only for the reason of pendency of the proceeding of the

execution case.

8. In the aforesaid view of the undertaking given by the

respondent No.1 not to proceed with the execution case for the

present, we find no reason to proceed with the present appeal.

9. This appeal is disposed of.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

(Praveen Kumar, J) Pawan/-

AFR/NAFR               NAFR
CAV DATE               N/A
Uploading Date         05.02.2026.
Transmission Date         N/A