Pradeep Kumar Sah Vs. General Manager, South Eastern Railway and ors.

Pradeep Kumar Sah vs General Manager, South Eastern Railway and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Apr 17, 2008

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/520722

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/520722
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: N.N. Tiwari, J.
Decided On: Apr 17, 2008
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Articles 12 & 226: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J., Narendra Nath Tiwari & D.P.Singh, JJ] Writ petition - Maintainability - Whether State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., is a State within meaning of Article 12 ? - Held, From perusal of relevant Rules of byelaws, it is clear that St...

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pradeep Kumar Sah

Respondent

General Manager, South Eastern Railway and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: [2008(3)JCR576(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. .....having accepted the delivery of goods and consumed the same cannot now turn around and deny the payment of the said goods. it has been submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get the amount of the goods supplied with interest, as the said amount has been illegally withheld by the respondents. it has further been submitted that in similar fact, situation and matter, the controversies had been arisen between the suppliers and railway. some of the suppliers preferred writ petitions, being w.p. (c) nos. 2735, 2729 and 2734 of 2007. all the said writ petitions having common issue were disposed of by this court by order dated 4th february, 2008, directing the respondents to see that the payment is made to the petitioners against their bills. it has been submitted that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the said decision of this court.3. a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, stating, inter alia, that the amount of the delivered goods were not paid to the petitioner because of delayed supply and the petitioner is not entitled to get the amount for delayed supply of goods. the respondents, however, did not dispute the supply of goods, made by the petitioner. there is no averment in the counter affidavit that the goods supplied by the petitioner were refused or returned.4. the instant case is squarely covered by the order of this court dated 4th february. 2008 passed in w.p. (c) no. 2735 of 2007 and analogous cases. the said fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the respondents.5. in view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to make payment of the amount against the petitioner's bill within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.6. if the amount is not paid within the said period, the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till final payment.

Full Judgment

ORDER

N.N. Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to pay the admitted dues of the petitioner, which has been withheld by the respondents on a flimsy ground that there was some delay in supply of the goods.

2. It has been stated that the petitioner had supplied all the goods within time. The goods were received and consumed by the respondents, but the payments have not been made for a long time without any basis. Now the respondents have taken stand that the payments were withheld, as the goods were not supplied in time. It has been stated by the petitioner that if the respondents had any difficulty to accept the delivery of goods, they should have returned the same then and there and, therefore, should have no occasion for any dispute, but the respondents having accepted the delivery of goods and consumed the same cannot now turn around and deny the payment of the said goods. It has been submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get the amount of the goods supplied with interest, as the said amount has been illegally withheld by the respondents. It has further been submitted that in similar fact, situation and matter, the controversies had been arisen between the suppliers and railway. Some of the suppliers preferred writ petitions, being W.P. (C) Nos. 2735, 2729 and 2734 of 2007. All the said writ petitions having common issue were disposed of by this Court by order dated 4th February, 2008, directing the respondents to see that the payment is made to the petitioners against their bills. It has been submitted that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the said decision of this Court.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, stating, inter alia, that the amount of the delivered goods were not paid to the petitioner because of delayed supply and the petitioner is not entitled to get the amount for delayed supply of goods. The respondents, however, did not dispute the supply of goods, made by the petitioner. There is no averment in the counter affidavit that the goods supplied by the petitioner were refused or returned.

4. The instant case is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 4th February. 2008 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2735 of 2007 and analogous cases. The said fact has not been denied by the learned Counsel for the respondents.

5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to make payment of the amount against the petitioner's bill within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

6. If the amount is not paid within the said period, the same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till final payment.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2008 Same Parties Pradeep Kumar Sah vs General Manager, South Eastern Railway a... Same Subject Civil Same Judge N.N. Tiwari, J.

Civil