Bombay High CourtWP/6942/2015dispossed offdismiss for default

M/S. Sunil Hi Tech Engineers Ltd. Company v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Thr. Its Chief Engineer (Infra Plan) And Others

2016-02-24Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Chandurkar1 pages

1/1 wp6942.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 6942 OF 2015 M/s. Sunil Hi Tech Engineers Ltd., Nagpur, through its Authorised Signatory Abhijit Tijare -vsMaharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.

or directions and Registrar's orders.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. S.V.Bhutada, counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. S.V.Purohit, counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.

DATE : 24.02.2016.

Shri Bhutada, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the contract executed between the respondents and the petitioner was not terminated, but during the pendency of the writ petition, there is a partial termination of the contract. It is stated that the petitioner can invoke the arbitration clause in view of the dispute between the parties and the petitioner is desirous of availing the alternate remedy. It is stated that the petitioner is desirous of withdrawing the writ petition in this background. It is prayed that in the aforesaid set of facts the ad interim relief granted by this Court on 23/12/2015 may be continued for a period of eight days.

Shri Purohit, the learned counsel for the respondents, states on instructions from the Superintending Engineer, Shri Chitore, who is present in the Court today that the respondents would not award the contract in pursuance of the tender, i.e. challenged in the writ petition for a period of eight more days. By accepting the statement made on behalf of the respondents, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to costs. The points raised by the petitioner in the instant petition are kept open.

JUDGE JUDGE KHUNTE