Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

Bank Guarantee Encashment 'Illegal and Unjustified' in Allotment Case: Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, under the stewardship of HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL, has issued a landmark judgment on October 13, 2023. The ruling revolves around the contentious issue of paddy allotment for the Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 2023-2024 and a protracted dispute between the petitioner, M/S JAGDAMBE RICE AND GENERAL MILLS, and the respondent, STATE OF PUNJAB through MARKFED.

The High Court's decision hinges on the encashment of a bank guarantee of Rs. 41 lakhs by MARKFED, which was declared "illegal and unjustified" by a Division Bench. This encashment had been a contentious point in the longstanding legal battle. Despite the encashment and the dismissal of a suit seeking recovery of Rs. 9,28,507/-, the respondent insisted on a claim of Rs. 1 crore, with the principal amount being Rs. 9,28,507/- and the remainder as interest.

The judgment notably highlights the absence of a crystallized demand against the petitioner, given the dismissal of the civil suit and the first appeal. It emphasizes that the mere pendency of a Regular Second Appeal (RSA) does not create an absolute or vested right. The petitioner had a history of receiving paddy allotments from 1995-1996 to 2022-2023 without any allegations of default. Additionally, the Court had previously ruled that MARKFED had wrongly encashed the bank guarantee of Rs. 41 lakhs.

The Court further criticized the Allotment Committee's lack of independent consideration and its apparent alignment with MARKFED, as it ignored various orders issued by the High Court. The judgment underlines the absence of any specific policy clause invoked by the respondent to justify the denial of paddy allotment.

As a result of these findings, the High Court allowed the petitioner's plea, setting aside the impugned order dated September 19, 2023. The respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner for the allotment of free paddy for KMS 2023-2024.

This judgment serves as a significant legal precedent, emphasizing the importance of fairness, proper consideration, and adherence to established legal principles in matters of allotment and contractual disputes.

In response to the judgment, Mr. Daman Dhir and Ms. Raman Dhir, advocates for the petitioner, expressed their satisfaction, stating, "This decision reaffirms the principles of justice and fairness in contractual disputes. The High Court's clear and reasoned ruling provides much-needed clarity in such matters."

Date of Decision: 13.10.2023

M/S JAGDAMBE RICE AND GENERAL MILLS   vs  STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Latest Legal News