Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court    |     Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case    |     Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case    |     Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute    |     Paternity Established Through SSC and Appointment Order, Legal Obligation to Maintain Unmarried Daughter: Andhra Pradesh High Court    |     No Appeal Shall Be Heard Without Disputed Tax Deposit: Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Section 96(b) of the Cantonment Act, 2006    |     Parties Must Choose Peace Over Litigation: Calcutta High Court Denies FIR Quashing in Family Dispute, Highlights Mediation Option    |     Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Recruitment of 1091 Assistant Professors and 67 Librarians In Punjab Due to Procedural Flaws    |     Res Judicata Bars Reconsideration of Adoption Validity in Second Round of Litigation: Jammu & Kashmir High Court    |     Candidates who use a party’s symbol must be deemed members of that party: Kerala High Court Upholds Disqualification for Defection    |     Inconsistencies in Eyewitness Accounts and Lack of Forensic Certainty Lead to Acquittal: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case    |     Delhi High Court Quashes Reassessment Notices Under Section 148 Due to Invalid Sanction by JCIT    |     Summons Under PMLA for Further Investigation Does Not Infringe Right Against Self-Incrimination: Telangana HC    |     Termination During Probation Is Lawful if Concealment of Criminal Case Is Proven: Allahabad HC    |     Disproportionate Fine Cannot Be Imposed for Recovery of 1 Liter of Country-made Liquor: Patna High Court    |     Prosecution failed to prove identity of remains and establish murder beyond reasonable doubt: Orissa High Court Acquit Ex-Husband    |     Despite 12 Injuries on the Victim, No Intention to Kill Found: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 304 Part-II IPC    |     Governor’s sanction suffers from non-application of mind: Karnataka High Court Stays Governor’s Sanction for Investigation Against CM Siddaramaiah    |    

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