news details |
|
|
| HC notice to GN PS SHO, cube const engineering | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Apr 7: Acting high court chief justice Virender Singh today issued notice to SHO of Gandhi Nagar police station SHO and M/s Cube Construction Engineering (CCE) returnable within four weeks.
The court directive came in a petition filed by M/s GVPR Engineers Limited, Hyderabad, through its managing director G S P Veera Reddy and others, seeking quashment of FIR No 55/2012 registered with Gandhi Nagar police station on the complaint of Ashwani Singh, managing partner of CCE, Gandhi Nagar.
Justice Singh, after hearing the two sides, directed SHO of Gandhi Nagar police station to file status report with regard to the investigation carried out.
In his complaint, Ashwani submitted that up to February 29, 2012, a payment of Rs 8,47,16,438, due to him in terms of the agreements, had been fraudulently and dishonestly withheld by the respondents.
In its petition, M/s GVPR Engineers Limited, Hyderabad, sought quashment of FIR on the basis that the company, in 2007-2008, was awarded the work of construction of roads in the Jammu region under several contracts executed by chief engineer, PMGSY, JKRRDA and the state.
That CCE, represented by Ashwani, approached the company for executing 25 value of the work in the contract. After a site visit, CCE offered to carry out all the works as assigned by the employer from time to time and accordingly a sub-contract agreement was signed with a margin of 1.71 p c for petitioner No. 1 on the gross value of the works executed at the rates specified in the contract as margin money and TDS deducted by the employer to be deducted from the payments made to respondent No 2, subject to bank guarantees and other conditions.
That after the execution of the sub-contract, the respondent No 2 did not keep up the milestone for completion of the contract. Because of this, the employer issued a series of letters complaining about the slow progress in the road work. The company was therefore forced to withhold payments to the respondent. That as per the sub-contract agreement, the only way of realization of amount due from petitioner No 1 was through arbitration and that too at Hyderabad. The respondent No 2 further realized that if arbitration proceedings were initiated, the respondent No 2 would stand exposed for the deficiency in service.
The respondent No 2 in gross abuse of the criminal law had reckoned to file a complaint under section 156(3) of CrPC, requesting to lodge FIR against the petitioners with police station, Gandhi Nagar under sections 420, 406 and 409 read with 120-B of RPC in order to coerce the petitioners to comply with the illegal demand for payment despite the deficiency in service on the part of respondent No 2. The petitioner sought the quashment of the FIR. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
