M/S Madhup Infotech Private Limited And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
Patna High Court CWJC No.19019 of 2015 (6) dt.22-08-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19019 of 2015 ======================================================
1. M/s Madhup Infotech Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office C/o S.N. Roy opposite Small Wonder School, Parmanand Path, Nageshwar Colony, Patna, Bihar.
2. M/S M2C Private Solution, through its Proprietor, Awnindra Kumar Son of Babban Prasad Singh having its registered office T-2, Third Floor, Gorakhnath Complex, East Boring Canal Road, Patna, Bihar.
3. M/S MKS Enterprises through its Proprietor Manoj Kumar Singh Son of Sri Ashok Kumar Singh having its registered office at 101, Hari Om Commercial Complex, New Dakbunglow Road, Patna through its Proprietor Manoj Kumar Singh.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary.
2. Secretary, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Limited, Bihar through its Managing Director, Beltron Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Patna - 800023. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Mr. Homa Yunus For the State-respondents: Mr. Nagendra Prasad Yadav, S.C.23 Mrs. Vijaya Laxmi Srivastava Mr. Rohit Mishra For the BELTRON : Mr. Girijesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for BELTRON as also learned counsel for the State. It is submitted by learned counsel for BELTRON that the entire admissible dues have been paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that there are further amounts, which have been informed
Patna High Court CWJC No.19019 of 2015 (6) dt.22-08-2016 to the petitioner that they would be paid subsequently. In the above circumstances, the writ application is disposed of as infructuous. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to represent before the respondent-authorities for any further amount that may be due or take recourse to appropriate proceedings in the matter.
(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) V.P.Sinha/- U