Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 31336 (JHR)

M/S. SANRON ENERGY PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY PRAKASH G SHUKLA v. M/S. OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION,

WPC/1390/2025 · 2025-07-07

Gautam Kumar Choudhary

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:JHHC:18163 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.1390 of 2025 ------ M/s Sanron Energy Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at E-102, Supath-2, near old Wadaj Bus Stand, P.O. Ushampura, P.S. Wadaj, District Ahmedabad, Gujarat, represented through its authorized signatory, Prakash G Shukla, son of Gunvantbhai Shukla, resident of 6/12 Munirathnam Street, P.O. & P.S. Aminjikarai, District Chennai, Tamil Nadu .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. M/s Oil & Natural Gas Corporation, represented through its Managing Director, having its corporate registered office at Deendayal Urja Bhavan, 5 Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasantkunj, P.O. Vasantkunj, P.S. Vasantkunj, New Delhi and having one of its Asset Office at CBM Asset Bokaro, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro 2. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. represented through its Managing Director, having its registered office at “Indian Oil Bhavan”, G9 Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), P.O. Bandra (East), P.S.Bandra (East), District Mumbai .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. PAS Pati, Advocate For the ONGC : Mr. Rahul Lamba, Advocate Mr. Nilesh Modi, Advocate . ------ Order No.07 / Dated : 07.07.2025 Instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - I. For seeking direction restraining respondent no.1 and 2 from taking any coercive steps against petitioner with respect to Gas Supply Agreement (GSA) dated 06.10.2022 executed between the parties. II. For seeking direction against respondent no.1 to refund the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- received by it due to illegal invoking bank guarantee no.0814IGP220016900 dated 08.07.2022. 2. Since the dispute is purely commercial in nature and Arbitration Clause is also there in the said contract, therefore, instant writ petition is not maintainable. Petitioner is at liberty to assert his right according to law under Court of competent jurisdiction. Writ Petition is disposed of. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit