DELTA LIMITED Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This interlocutory application in suit has been specially assigned to this Bench.

(2.) Mr. Sarkar, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of applicant-plaintiff. He submits, subsequent to filing of this suit and an earlier interlocutory application made, Jute Commissioner passed order dated 10th December, 2018, in which plaintiff was found to be entitled to issuance in its favour, Production Control cum Supply Order (PCSO) under operative Jute Control Order. On basis of contents in letter dated 26th May, 2015, issued by Assistant Director of Supplies, and going by past experience, this second application for restraint order upon defendants from withholding price of goods to be sold and supplied under PCSOs issued pursuant to said order dated 10th December, 2018. It will appear from letter dated 26th May, 2015 that sum of Rs.2,57,87,692/- stands already withheld while alleged aggregate of sum in excess of Rs.4 crores is yet to be recovered from his client, by withholding payment on future supplies. He submits, against withholding price of goods sold and delivered, which is subject matter of this suit, purportedly on the basis of recoveries to be made against earlier contract for supply made and paid for, his client had filed GA 747 of 2016 seeking restraint order on such withholding. Co-ordinate Bench by order dated 27th July, 2016 refused interlocutory relief sought. His client preferred appeal, which was dealt with by order dated 11th August, 2016. He relies on following in said appellate order.

(3.) Defendants cannot seek to withhold without obtaining adjudication on entitlement to a sum. For this, he relies on judgment of Supreme Court in Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2016 11 SCC 720, paragraphs 36, 37 and 40. He submits, his client is entitled to a quia timet action. He relies on judgment of Supreme Court in Kuldip Singh vs. Subhash Chander Jain,2004 4 SCC 50, paragraph 6 which is reproduced below: