Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Syed Bashir-ud-Din, J.
State Forest Corp., J&K & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Ab. Hamid Thoker & Anr. - Respondent
CIMA No. 130/2003
Decided On : 30 April, 2004
Management Decision - Dispute over Payments - - Management decision No. 1 of 2002 dated 07.01-2002, letter bearing No. 35-37/Stw/Bij. Dated 10.04.2002, letter bearing No. 163-164/GM/RD/SFC/CJ dated 26.04.2002 - The court discussed the management decision and circulars prohibiting payment of in built charges in respect of works executed after 17.1.2002. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the management decision and the verified calculation, and directed the release of requisite funds in accordance with the management decision. The court found that the management decision of the State Forest Corporation and the report of the expert Committee constituted by the Managing Director SFC should be given effect to and the payments be worked out accordingly for release to applicants. The court also dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the trial court's exercise of discretion was fair and reasonable.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, as Contractors under State Forest Corporation, challenged the Management decision and Circulars prohibiting payment of in built charges in respect of works executed after 17.1.2002. The trial court allowed the application for interim relief regarding payments for the works completed after 17.01.2001. The plaintiffs complained of non-implementation of the order and moved a contempt petition before the trial court. The court directed respondents to sit together and square out the issues, complete required formalities, and release requisite funds in accordance with the management decision. Part payment was released to applicants/plaintiffs, and the court observed that Management decision of SFC shall prevail as against individual report regarding quantifications of G.H.Marazi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the management decision of the State Forest Corporation and the report of the expert Committee constituted by the Managing Director SFC should be given effect to and the payments be worked out accordingly for release to applicants. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the trial court's exercise of discretion was fair and reasonable.
Issues: Dispute over payments for works completed after 17.01.2001, non-implementation of court orders, objections raised by officials regarding calculations and due payable amount, and the trial court's authority to issue directions in the context of the dispute being referable to the Arbitrator under the arbitral agreement between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the management decision and the verified calculation, and directed the release of requisite funds in accordance with the management decision. The court found that the management decision of the State Forest Corporation and the report of the expert Committee constituted by the Managing Director SFC should be given effect to and the payments be worked out accordingly for release to applicants. The court also dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the trial court's exercise of discretion was fair and reasonable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the trial court's exercise of discretion was fair and reasonable.
"As such application is granted i.e payments shall be made to the applicants for the work done up to 17.01.2001 including additional works done in the compartment No. RB-1, RB-4, RB-16 and RB-17 on account of in-built charges, transportation, extraction and mahaning in terms of management decision No. 1 of 2002 dated 07.01-2002 and the letter bearing No. 35-37/Stw/Bij. Dated 10.04.2002 and letter bearing No. 163-164/GM/RD/SFC/CJ dated 26.04.2002, which should have been done by non-applicant No. 4 otherwise also by respecting the management decision which is catagoric and un-equivocal to the effect that no in-built charges shall be payable for the works done after 17.01.2001.
However, plaintiffs/petitioners complained of non implementation of the order and moved a contempt petition before the trial court. Managing Director SFC(Respondent No. 1) in terms of the memo filed has not objected to the compliance of the order and instead stated before the court that the worked out amount has been released to the SFC and is only to be disbursed to the Contractors/mates. Respondent No. 3 Divisional Manager has also stated that steps have been taken for implementation of the order, but contemnor No. 2 Financial Advisor to SFC contended that the budget amount could have been allotted for utilization against the works only after Divisional Manager/General Manager concerned recommended the requisition n of the funds through Divisional Manager for release. However, in this case, no requisition was preferred. The court again by order dated 10.2.2003 taking note of in-management differences directed respondents to sit together and square out the issues complete required formalities and release requisite funds in accordance with the management decision. Pursuant to this direction, the Managing Director submitted report to the court. However, the Financial Advisor Janak Singh objected to the calculation and details. Thereafter as if not enough, the court by order dated 7.4.2003 directed Managing Director SFC to constitute Committee for verification of actual calculations and due payable amount. The Managing Director following the directions constituted a committee which committee has filed the report through Managing Director. In respect of this report, trial court by order dated 27.05.2003 observed and passed further direction as under:-
"Un-disputed amounts in accordance with the management decision are not being released perhaps due to the internal crisis or due to the disliking by R.M. Mr.Marazi and Mr. Janak Singh. Report of the committee is on the file. It is Mr.Marazi and Janak Singh who shall adhere to the norms and shall thereafter forthwith comply the management decision and the verified calculation be given effect. They shall report compliance within week time and shall appear in person in this Court failing which action as warranted under law i.e under Order 39 Rule 2.C.P.C shall be taken. Let the matter come up accordingly after weeks time i.e 3.6.2003."
Pursuant to court orders, part payment has been released to applicants/plaintiffs and with regard to objec
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
