Full Text
Translation output
A-11, 12& 13
% 23.09.2011
Present: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajinder Nischal, Advocate for the respondents in
CONT. CAS (C) No 437/2011.
Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents in
CONT. CAS (C) No 593/2011.
+ CM No.17934/2011 (delay) in CONT. CAS (C) No.593/2011
*
In view of the averments contained in the instant apphcation, delay of nine days in filing reply to the contempt petition is condoned.
Application disposed of.
CONT. CAS (C) Nos 426/2011. 437/2011 & 593/2011
The petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondents; his contention is that the directions contained in the order dated 12.08.2010 have not been complied with. On
12.08.2010, a Single Bench of this Court had held that the benefit of circular dated 28.08.2000 shall be extended to the duly Small
Scale Units (SSUs) unless there are good reasons for not doing so and the said reasons must be recorded in writing; price reference of 15% over the quoted price was also to be implemented. The grievance of the petitioner is that this circular has not been implemented by them. The respondents have put in appearance. It is submitted that the tender submitted by the petitioner is yet under consideration; it has not been rejected. Admittedly the said
2011:DHC:9741
-cr tender being pending at this stage, the question of contempt does not arise.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J. y
SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 a
UpllH
I>©jLp-s
2011:DHC:9741
% 23.09.2011
Present: Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajinder Nischal, Advocate for the respondents in
CONT. CAS (C) No 437/2011.
Dr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents in
CONT. CAS (C) No 593/2011.
+ CM No.17934/2011 (delay) in CONT. CAS (C) No.593/2011
*
In view of the averments contained in the instant apphcation, delay of nine days in filing reply to the contempt petition is condoned.
Application disposed of.
CONT. CAS (C) Nos 426/2011. 437/2011 & 593/2011
The petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondents; his contention is that the directions contained in the order dated 12.08.2010 have not been complied with. On
12.08.2010, a Single Bench of this Court had held that the benefit of circular dated 28.08.2000 shall be extended to the duly Small
Scale Units (SSUs) unless there are good reasons for not doing so and the said reasons must be recorded in writing; price reference of 15% over the quoted price was also to be implemented. The grievance of the petitioner is that this circular has not been implemented by them. The respondents have put in appearance. It is submitted that the tender submitted by the petitioner is yet under consideration; it has not been rejected. Admittedly the said
2011:DHC:9741
-cr tender being pending at this stage, the question of contempt does not arise.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J. y
SEPTEMBER 23, 2011 a
UpllH
I>©jLp-s
2011:DHC:9741
JUDGMENT