Ms Kunwar Construction vs Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 1130 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Ms Kunwar Construction vs Union Of India on 17 February, 2026

                      Office
                      Notes,
                     reports,
                    orders or
                   proceeding
SL.
        Date           s or                                 COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                   directions
                       and
                   Registrar's
                   order with
                   Signatures
      17.02.2026
                                 WPMB No. 18 of 2026
                                  Ms Kunwar Construction                                    --Petitioner
                                                       Versus
                                  Union Of India                                   --Respondent
                                  With
                                  WPMB No. 514 of 2025
                                 Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.

Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

1. Sri Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Ms. Riddhi Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

3. Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Modification Application No. 3 of 2026

4. The petitioner has filed the present Application with Delay Condonation Application (IA No. 2 of 2026).

5. The delay in filing the Modification Application is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the Delay Condonation Application is allowed.

6. The petitioner seeks modification of the order dated 09.01.2026 to the extent it directs the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50 Lacs as a condition precedent for keeping the recovery in abeyance. He submits that the said condition was imposed on account of submission inadvertently made to the effect that the amount due under the impugned order is Rs. 25,15,026/-. He further submits that the Court while mentioning the said figure has put a comma (,) after figure '2', which conveyed an impression that the amount due was in crores and it is for the said reason that the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 50 Lacs as a condition for grant of interim order.

7. We have been taken through the impugned order and we find the submission to be correct. The total amount found to be due, along with interest and penalty, is Rs. 34,79,716/-.

8. Accordingly, the order dated 09.01.2026 is modified and it is, hereby, provided that subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 10 Lacs, the recovery proceedings shall remain stayed. The amount shall be deposited within four weeks from today, failing which the interim order would stand automatically discharged.

9. The Modification Application (IA No.3 of 2026), accordingly, stands disposed of.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) 17.02.2026 17.02.2026 Rathour