Allowed

Rajinder Singh Bhasin and Anr. v. M/S Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2010CR/4880/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to dispose of a civil suit on statements alone when objections to recovery were raised. The impugned order was set aside and the case remanded to the trial court to decide on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside; the case is remanded to the learned trial court to proceed with the civil suit on merits.

Rajinder Singh Bhasin and Anr. Vs M/S Larsen… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CR No.4880 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No.4880 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.09.2010

¶5

Rajinder Singh Bhasin & Anr.

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA

¶10

Present: Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.K.S.Rekhi, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 5.

¶12

Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral)

¶13

The petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 19.1.2009 passed by the learned trial court vide which suit filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners was ordered to be disposed of, on the statements made by the parties.

¶14

Learned trial court while disposing of the case ordered that amount which the petitioners alleged to be illegally recovered can be

¶15

CR No.4880 of 2009

¶16

¶17

claimed by filing a suit for recovery.

¶18

Reading of the impugned order shows that there was no consent given by the petitioners for disposing of the suit on consent.

¶19

Statement of Advocate appearing on behalf of plaintiff No.2 reads as under:-

¶20

“ The amount which has been recovered by the bank from the plaintiff is illegal, the compliance of the order passed by this court for directing the bank for transferring the share on 17.10.2008 has not been complied with. The plaintiffs have never been given any form duly filled up so far to transfer the share certificates in the name of the plaintiff No.1, the ban official namely Sh.Harwinder Pal Singh Kalra has mislead this court by making a false statement. I am ready for cross examination in pursuance of my affidavit already tendered in this case. Copy of statement of account has not been supplied to us.”

¶21

The learned court, therefore, could not have disposed of the suit on the basis of the statement and was required to decide the suit on merit. In case it was found that the suit was not competent or not maintainable in the form framed, it should have been dismissed and decree drawn, but the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to dispose of the suit on the statement when a specific objection to the recovery made by the bank was raised.

¶22

CR No.4880 of 2009

¶23

¶24

Consequently, revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and the case is remanded back to the learned trial court to proceed with the civil suit in accordance with law and decide the lis on merits.

¶25

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before

¶26

the learned trial court on 11.10.2010.

¶27

No costs.

¶28

(Vinod K.Sharma) 15.09.2010 Judge rp

Rajinder Singh Bhasin and Anr. v. M/S Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Singh Bhasin and Anr. v. M/S Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaka Singh etc. Vs Joint Director Panchayat & Ors.

Muni Lal Vs Joint Director Panchayt & Ors.

Ajaib Singh etc. Vs Joint Director Panchayt & Ors.

Lal Singh Vs Narain and Ors.

Rajender Singh Vs P.O. & Anr.

Joga Singh Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Gurdaspur & Ors.