Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

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

Similar News