This story is from January 19, 2017

High Court allows FA Constructions’ amendment plea

Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court, on Wednesday, allowed amendment application filed by FA Constructions.
High Court allows FA Constructions’ amendment plea
(Representative image)
NAGPUR: Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court, on Wednesday, allowed amendment application filed by FA Constructions. The Mumbai-based firm knocked judiciary’s doors contending that it wanted to brought to fore many other issues related to termination of its contract by Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (VIDC) it on December 7.
The court then adjourned hearing on case till February 1. Petitioner Nisar Fateh Mohammed Khatri, partner in the firm, moved to judiciary through senior counsel Mohan Bhangde and Shyam Dewani.

The duo contended that VIDC, while ordering for cancellation of entire contract, forfeiture of security deposit, and blacklisting FA Constructions for four years, had also asked for stoppage of its running account bills. They said there is no provision in the entire contract, which empowers or permits VIDC to stop these bills for the works which were already executed by the firm. The order is contrary to the provisions of contract as well as Article 300A of the Constitution of India as the petitioner is deprived of his property without authority of law, they argued.
The VIDC had allotted works to construct the canal to FA constructions by inking a pact, but after expose of irrigation scam, allegations of irregularities in this contract were made. Subsequently, the state anti-corruption bureau (ACB) investigated and found the allegations to be true. The ACB then lodged a police complaint against company’s directors at Sadar Police Station.
As a result, the VIDC issued notice to petitioner asking on why its contracts shouldn’t be cancelled in wake of irregularities and FIR. The corporation then cancelled its old pact and decided to float new tenders for the completion of canal. However, it barred FA Constructions from participating in the new tender, which it had challenged in the court.
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA