Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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