Saibhakti Impex Private Ltd v. Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation of India Limited & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Petition stands disposed of in the above terms
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 80
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B.B. Bagga, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to settle and pay the amount due under a valid policy of Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) purchased by the petitioner, as per representations dated 28.7.2007 and 20.8.2007 (P- 22 & P-23). It has further been prayed that directions be also issued to the respondents to compensate the petitioner by payment of Rs.
21.61 lacs with interest from the date of submission of claim. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the paper book. Before disposing of this writ petition we would refer to the views of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Salem C.W.P. No. 15570 of 2007 2 Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344. In paras 38 and 39 of the judgment it has been required that whenever notice under Section 80 C.P.C. or under any similar provision are sent then it is mandatory on the part of State or Central Government or other authorities to send reply to such notice. It is well settled that before seeking a direction or a writ of mandamus, a demand justice notice is required to be served on the respondents as has been done in the present case. The petitioner has sent two representations dated
28.7.2007 and 20.8.2007 (P-22 & P-23), to which no reply is stated to have been received. It has also been observed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that in cases where such like notice/representation has not been replied then cost is required to be imposed. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we dispose of the writ petition at this stage with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the aforementioned representations by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE October 5, 2007 Pkapoor
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Petition stands disposed of in the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 80.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 05 Oct 2007. The bench was M M KUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.