DIMPY ENTERPRISES Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner through the medium of instant petition under Sec. 104 of the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing order dated 16.09.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jammu in an Appeal titled M/s. Dimpy Enterprises Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others (hereinafter for short as ' impugned order-) by virtue of which order dated 11.06.2016 passed by learned Sub-Registrar (Munsiff), Jammu in a civil suit titled M/s. Dimpy Enterprises Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others has been upheld and appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner has called in question impugned order, inter alia, on the grounds that while dismissing the appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu, respondents-defendants have been given free hand to proceed with the tendering process, which if accomplished would render the suit infructuous thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged order impugned on the ground that this Court in an earlier round of litigation granted status quo with regard to the installation of DG set and also stayed the operation of impugned orders dated 21.04.2015 and 25.02.2016 in Petition under Sec. 104 No. 23/2016 titled M/s. Dimpy Enterprises Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others. Therefore, in view of the interim order dated 10.03.2016 passed by this Court in a Petition under Sec. 104 No. 23/2016, respondents could not have proceeded with issuance of fresh tender notice, so as to enter into a new contract. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in an earlier suit petitioner sought decree of declaration declaring order dated 04.12.2013 issued by respondent No. 2 with regard to termination of contract qua 40 KVA DG set installed by the petitioner-plaintiff at LIC Satellite office, Leh, as illegal, unlawful, non est, void ab initio and bad in the eye of law, along with relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondents-defendants to allow petitioner-plaintiff to operate Diesel Generator Set installed by him at different branches/offices of the defendants-respondents pursuant to their requisition and contracts. Learned counsel for petitioner, therefore, contends that it is in that context, this Court in the earlier Petition bearing Pet. u/S. 104, No. 23/2016 stayed operation of impugned orders dated 21.04.2015 and 25.02.2016 and directed parties to maintain status quo.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that calling of fresh tender by respondent No. 2 was in contravention of previous order passed in an earlier suit filed by petitioner, with respect to which petition under Sec. 104, No. 23/2016 is subjective and order of status quo has been granted by the Court.