9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13,13,07,485/- to respondent no.2. However, GAIL has never admitted the said amount as due and payable. The order passed by respondent no.1 is in the nature of a garnishee order. Plainly, respondent no.1 cannot compel GAIL to pay any amount which is not due and payable by GAIL to respondent no.2. The impugned order is not open ended and directs GAIL to deposit an ascertained sum of money - In the given facts, it is clear that the impugned order directing GAIL to pay a sum of ₹13,13,07,485/- is not sustainable. There is no material to show that any such amount is due and payable by GAIL. GAIL and respondent no.2 are ad-idem that the only amount that GAIL is required to pay is approximately ₹6.54 crores after respondent no.2 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e treated as an assessee in default as stated in the impugned order dated 08.03.2018. 4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the controversy in the present petition are as under: 4.1 GAIL invited tenders on 12.01.2011 24.01.2011 for laying of pipelines for the spur lines to Bilwara and Chittorgarh as well as augmentation of existing Vijaipur-Kota pipeline. 4.2 Respondent no.2, is engaged in the business of executing such works and submitted its bid pursuant to GAIL s invitation to tender for the works. Respondent no.2 s bid was accepted and the contract for execution of the works was awarded to it. 4.3 GAIL claims that thereafter, sometime in August, 2013, it found that respondent no.2 had submitted certa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,13,07,485/-. 4.9 The present petition was filed on 04.05.2018 and an interim order was passed restraining respondent no.1 from recovering any amount pursuant to the impugned notice. 4.10 Respondent no.1 was also granted an opportunity to file a counter affidavit to the petition. 4.11 During the course of the present proceedings, the arbitration proceedings inter se GAIL and respondent no.2 culminated into arbitral awards (three in numbers). 4.12 GAIL and respondent no.2 have entered into an understanding to settle their disputes. In terms of their settlement, GAIL has agreed to pay respondent no.2 an amount of ₹6.54 crores (approximately), subject to respondent no.2 furnishing an invoice of ₹1.01 crores (approximate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is concerned, clearly, they are not a subject matter of the impugned order and there is no impediment for GAIL to return the said bank guarantees to respondent no.2. It is also not respondent no.1s case that GAIL is obliged in any manner to invoke any bank guarantees to make any payments to respondent no.1. 7. Insofar as GAIL s request to permit respondent no.2 to pay an amount of ₹6.54 crores is concerned, admittedly, the said amount is not due to respondent no.2 unless respondent no.2 issues an invoice of ₹1.01 crores. 8. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that its GST registration has been cancelled and respondent no.2 would require to restore the same for issuing the invoice which may take some ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
