Hscl-sipl (Jv) Vs. National Highways Authority of India

Hscl-sipl (Jv) vs National Highways Authority of India

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Aug 10, 2010

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/906261

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/906261
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: I . P. Mukerji, J.
Decided On: Aug 10, 2010
Case Number: AP No. 118 of 2009
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hscl-sipl (Jv)

Advocate Mr.Utpal Bose, Adv.

Respondent

National Highways Authority of India

Advocate Mr.Bhudeb Chatterjee, Adv.

Excerpt

the court : the averments made in the section 9 application do not show that this court has jurisdiction. however, it is very extraordinary that such point was not taken at the earliest stage. as a consequence interim orders have been passed whereby the respondent has been directed to keep the bank guarantee amount in a separate account. although i have no option but to dismiss the application, but since affidavits have been filed in this matter and the rights of the parties have been altered because of the pendency of this application before this court, the parties are directed to maintain status quo amongst themselves with regard to the contract for a period of four weeks from date to enable the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. on expiry of such period of four weeks or upon the petitioner approaching the forum, whichever is earlier, this order will stand vacated. all parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.

Full Judgment

The Court : The averments made in the Section 9 application do not show that this Court has jurisdiction. However, it is very extraordinary that such point was not taken at the earliest stage.

As a consequence interim orders have been passed whereby the respondent has been directed to keep the bank guarantee amount in a separate account.

Although I have no option but to dismiss the application, but since affidavits have been filed in this matter and the rights of the parties have been altered because of the pendency of this application before this Court, the parties are directed to maintain status quo amongst themselves with regard to the contract for a period of four weeks from date to enable the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.

On expiry of such period of four weeks or upon the petitioner approaching the forum, whichever is earlier, this order will stand vacated.

All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2010 Same Parties Hscl-sipl (Jv) vs National Highways Authority of India Same Subject MRTP Same Judge I . P. Mukerji, J.