On February 7, 2022, the respondent had informed the Court that they have already manufactured the goods that are customized and therefore, if the appellant is not directed to lift the customized manufactured goods that the respondent had made as per the work order, the respondent will suffer a huge loss.
The Court had then passed an order directing officials of the appellant to visit the place where the manufactured goods are kept and identify the goods which are immediately required, at this stage which shall not be less than 25% of the total quantity manufactured. It had also ordered the appellant to make a schedule with respect to the balance goods manufactured and when the goods will be lifted and payment shall be made.
Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, appearing for the appellant on February 28, told the Court that pursuant to the February 7 order, an official of the Municipal Council had made a visit to the place of the respondent. On inspection of the goods, it was seen that the goods do not meet the requirement of the work order and that they were not prepared for the Council as claimed by the respondents.
It was argued that since there manufactured goods are not available as per the specifications and the requirements of the appellant and as per the work order, there is no question of accepting any goods as per the work order as directed by the High Court.
Source: Barandbench
