9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the respondent placed a purchase order on the petitioner pertaining to the specified Switch Board vide letter dated 10-7-1995. The transaction emanated from agreement for the Kharagpur Augmentation Water Supply Scheme belonging to Public Health Engg. Department, the Government of West Bengal Undertaking at Keshpal Augmentation Water Supply Scheme Pumping Station, Midnapore, West Bengal. The petitioner had also asked for Mobilisation Advance of 10 per cent but no reply was given by the respondent. According to the petitioner, respondent's order was kept in abeyance for want of required clarification regarding terms of payment. Request of the respondent to make payment by post dated cheque was declined by the petitioner. Petitioner was surp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ented before this court. Alleged concealed facts as per the petitioner are (i) that the petitioner and the respondent were having business dealings. They were doing business in many ways in respect of various related items, (ii) That the respondent had to receive a sum of Rs. 11,56,271.55 paise from the petitioner on account of business dealing which the respondent had with the petitioner, (iii) That the petitioner concealed and mis-represented about the decision of the Calcutta High Court by virtue of which its writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner has alleged that his petition was dismissed on the ground that the dispute was inter se the private parties. Whereas in fact vide order dated 9-4-1998 petitioner's petition was dismissed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the terms of the said agreement. It was the term of that agreement that after receipt of the first instalment the petitioner would give 'C Form and ST-1 Forms to the respondent. The petitioner was to call another meeting for resolving the alternator manufacturing and marketing agreement and the amount payable to the respondent on account of PHED, Jodhpur was to be quantified. The petitioner-company by suppressing of all these facts filed this petition. 6. Notice of this application was served on the petitioner through counsel. Heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi, the senior advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjiv Behl for the respondent/applicant. 7. That perusal of this petition shows the petitioner had concealed and suppressed material facts, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first instalment on 29-8-1998 which was duly accepted by the petitioner herein. This petitioner instead of waiting till 5th September, i.e., the last date of payment of the first instalment filed this petition on 27-8-1998. The case came up before this court on 9-9-1998 by which date the petitioner had already received the amount of Rs. 12.81 lakhs from the respondent-company in pursuance to the said agreement. This fact was not brought to the notice of this Court on 9-9-1998 when the case came up for the first time. From the above facts, it is clear that the petitioner company has intentionally suppressed the abovesaid material facts and mis-representated before this court in order to obtain favourable orders. 8. The contention of Dr. A.M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
