Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: 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