Dismissed

Kashmir Singh v. Punjab Agro Food Grains Corp. Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Feb 2012CR/881/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a revision petition under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of an application to reject a civil suit for recovery. It held that since disciplinary recovery was unenforced, the suit remains maintainable and the case is not covered by precedent barring suits. The petition was treated as frivolous.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed as meritless, frivolous and actuated by mala fide and dishonesty in limine.

Kashmir Singh Vs Punjab Agro Food… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C. R. No. 881 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. R. No. 881 of 2012

¶5

Date of Decision : February 10, 2012

¶6

Kashmir Singh .... Petitioner Vs. The Punjab Food Grains Corporation Ltd. .... Respondent

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶8

¶9

Present : Mr. O. P. Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

¶12

C. M. No. 3584-C-II of 2012 :

¶13

Allowed as prayed for.

¶14

C. M. No. 3585-C of 2012 :

¶15

Application is allowed and documents Annexures P-1 to P-4 and P-6 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Main Case :

¶17

Defendant Kashmir Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-3) moved

¶18

C. R. No. 881 of 2012

¶19

¶20

by defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) for rejection of plaint instituted by respondent-plaintiff – The Punjab Food Grains Corporation Ltd. (in short – the Corporation).

¶21

Plaintiff Corporation has filed suit vide plaint Annexure P-1 against defendant-petitioner for recovery of Rs.82,23,168/- being the amount of loss caused by the defendant-petitioner, who was employee of the plaintiff-Corporation.

¶22

The defendant in application Annexure P-3 alleged that suit for recovery is not maintainable in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PUNSUP vs. Sikander Singh reported as AIR 2006 SC 1438 because the alleged loss amount can be recovered only in disciplinary proceedings and not by filing suit.

¶23

Plaintiff filed reply Annexure P-4 to the aforesaid application opposing the same.

¶24

Learned trial court, vide impugned order Annexure P-5, dismissed application Annexure P-3 moved by the defendant. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant revision petition.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶26

case file.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sikander Singh (supra) and also relying on judgment dated 23.04.2010 (Annexure P-6), passed by this Court

¶28

C. R. No. 881 of 2012

¶29

¶30

in R. S. A. No. 393 of 2010 titled Kirpal Singh vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh and others , contended that the alleged loss amount cannot be recovered by way of suit and can be recovered only by disciplinary proceedings or by any other appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, and therefore, the plaint is liable to rejection.

¶31

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but the same cannot be accepted.

¶32

Counsel for the petitioner stated that by way of disciplinary proceedings, plaintiff Corporation has imposed punishment on the defendant-petitioner by way of his dismissal from service and also by ordering recovery of amount of Rs.82,23,168/-. Counsel for the petitioner admitted that the defendant-petitioner has not paid the said amount imposed on him by punishment order passed by disciplinary authority. Consequently, the plaintiff-respondent cannot be left without any remedy to recover the loss amount caused by the defendant-petitioner. If the suit amount had been recovered in disciplinary proceedings, the position would have been different. However, recovery of the suit amount ordered by way of punishment order by the disciplinary authority cannot be made in any other manner except by filing the suit. Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit for recovery. Obviously, if the defendant-petitioner pays the suit amount to plaintiff Corporation, pursuant to punishment order, then the defendant-petitioner may be entitled to raise the aforesaid

¶33

C. R. No. 881 of 2012

¶34

¶35

contention for rejection of plaint. However, the defendant-petitioner cannot have best of both the worlds. The defendant-petitioner does not want to pay the disputed amount ordered to be recovered from him by way of punishment order in disciplinary proceedings and the defendant-petitioner also wants that the plaint of plaintiff-respondent instituted for recovery of suit amount should also be rejected on account of disciplinary proceedings. This is not permissible at all. Punishment order in disciplinary proceedings regarding recovery of the amount rather strengthens the plaintiff's claim for suit amount. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the amount remaining unpaid despite order of its recovery from the defendant in disciplinary proceedings, judgments in the cases of Sikander Singh (supra) and Kirpal Singh (supra) are not applicable to this case.

¶36

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, which is not only meritless, but is also frivolous and actuated by mala fide and dishonesty. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.

¶37

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶38

February 10, 2012

¶39

monika

Kashmir Singh v. Punjab Agro Food Grains Corp. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashmir Singh v. Punjab Agro Food Grains Corp. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumer Singh Vs Hardo @ Harwati @ Messarti and Others

Air Impact India Ltd. and Ors. Vs Hfc and Ors.

Hans Raj Vs M/S H.M.T. Ltd. and Ors.

Puran Chand Vs Panna Lal and Ors.

Rukhman Vs Bala Dutt Sharma and Ors.

Harbhajan Singh Vs Lakhwinder Singh and Ors.