Dismissed

Union of India v. M/S Jhoomar Lal Swaroop Lal

Rajasthan HC20 Mar 2024CFA/23/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil first appeal by the Government and dismissed a cross-objection. The court affirmed the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff firm, holding that transfer of NSCs by officials binds the Government to pay regardless of the NSC scheme's restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Civil First Appeal dismissed; Cross-Objection dismissed in default; Decree drawn accordingly.

Union of India Vs M/S Jhoomar Lal Swaroop… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:27010]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 23/1994

¶4

Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Post And Telegraph, Dak Bhawan, Ministry Of Telecommunication, New Delhi

¶5

Sub Post Master, Karauli (Rajasthan)

¶6

Superintendent, Post Office, Sawai Madhopur

¶7

Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

M/s Jhoomar Lal Swaroop Lal, Registered Partnership Firm, Registered Office At Nahargarh Road, Chokadi Purani Basti, Jaipur Through Its Partners 1. Pradduman Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Shri Govind Narain Ji Tiwari, R/o Plot No. B-14, Shiv Marg, Banipark, Jaipur

¶11

Smt. Savitri Tiwari Widow Of Late Shri Arun Kumar Tiwari, R/o Tiwari Building, Nahargarh Road, Jaipur

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Cross Objection No. …./1997

¶15

¶16

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 23/1994

¶17

Pradduman Kumar Tiwari son of late Shri Govind Narain Ji Tiwari, resident of Plot No.B-14 Shiv Marg, banipark. Jaipur

¶18

----Plaintiff-Objector

¶19

Versus

¶20

Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Post And Telegraph, Dak Bhawan, Ministry Of Telecommunication, New Delhi

¶21

Sub Post Master, Karauli (Rajasthan) 3. Superintendent, Post Office, Sawai Madhopur

¶22

Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur –-----Defendant Appellants

¶23

M/s Jhoomar Lal Swaroop Lal, registered Partnership

¶24

(2 of 5) [CFA-23/1994]

¶25

[2024:RJ-JP:27010]

¶26

Firm, registered office at Nahargarh Road, Chokadi Purani Basti, Jaipur through its partners

¶27

Smt. Savitri Tiwari widow of Late Shri Arun Kumar Tiwari, resident of Tiwari Building, Nahargarh Fort, Jaipur

¶28

----Proforma plaintiffs-respondents

¶29

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. B.S. Chhaba Dy. S.G.with
	Mr. Mukesh Dudi
For Respondent(s)	: NONE

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶31

Order

¶32

20/03/2024

¶33

Instant first appeal is preferred aggrieved from judgment and decree dated 09.11.1993 in civil suit No.09/1992 passed by learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Karauli (As a civil court) whereby in a suit preferred by plaintiff respondent, decree was passed in following manner:

¶34

^^ nkok oknh ds gd esa ,oa izfroknhx.k ds fo#) e; [kpkZ bl izdkj fMdzh fd;kg tkrk gS fd oknh 80]600@& :i;s vius cpr i= izn'kZA yxk;r 8 ds Hkqxrku ds :i esa izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk bl jde ij fnukad 25-1089 ls rkjh[k olwyh rd 6 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls lk/kkj.k C;kt izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ipkZ fMdzh rS;kj fd;k tkosA **

¶35

Aggrieved from aforesaid, appellants defendants had preferred instant appeal. The plaintiff Pradhuman Kumar Tiwari has filed a cross objection and same is also tagged with the file. We are considering these cross-objections along with instant first appeal. The appeal was admitted on 23.08.1996.

[2024:RJ-JP:27010]

[CFA-23/1994]

(3 of 5)

Office has pointed out delay of one day in filing crossobjection.

¶40

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and delay is condoned.

¶41

Misc. application stands disposed of.

¶42

The facts giving rise to first appeal are that the plaintiff-a registered firm has filed a suit for recovery of ₹.80,000/- with interest against the defendants. The defendants had filed written statement denying the liability for payment. Learned trial court has framed as many as 6 issued on the basis of pleadings of the parties.

¶43

PW-1 Praddhuman was examined by the plaintiff and 23 documents were exhibited by him but no evidence was produced by the defendants in rebuttal or in support of objection raised by them. Learned trial court has decided issue Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of plaintiff and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff. Aggrieved from aforesaid, defendants are before this court with the first appeal.

¶44

Learned Deputy Solicitor General submits that the trial court has committed serious error while passing the judgment and decree in favour of respondent plaintiff. He also submitted that the notice under Section 80 CPC given by the plaintiff was duly replied by them wherein the defendants have denied the claim of plaintiff. He also submitted that under the scheme of National Savings Certificate (NSC), same can be sold to the individuals and not to any legal entity or the business firm. He also submitted that the claim of the plaintiff was contrary to the scheme therefore same was denied. He also submitted that the plaintiff has no right

[2024:RJ-JP:27010]

[CFA-23/1994]

(4 of 5)

to institute a civil suit before the trial court and the trial court has committed serious error while deciding issue Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of plaintiff.

¶49

No one is present on behalf of respondent plaintiff to oppose the contentions of learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing on behalf of appellant defendant. No one is present to pursue the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff.

¶50

Considered the submissions of learned Deputy Solicitor General and perused the record.

¶51

As no one is present for cross-objector/plaintiff therefore the cross-objection is liable to be dismissed in default and since we are considering the appeal on merits therefore same can not survive after disposal of this appeal. Issue Nos. 1 to 5: 12. The evidence of plaintiff PW-1 is available on record and no other evidence is available to rebut the claim of plaintiff. A perusal of findings of PW-1 shows that by investing money, aforesaid NSCs were purchased and after the purchase, same were transferred as there was requirement of a Government body to pledge NSC them as security on behalf of firm. A fact is placed on record which shows that when NSCs were issued they were not used for investment by individual rather they were being used for security purpose. Learned trial court has considered the issue of estopple while considering the evidence on record. The trial court has also noticed that NSCs were transferred in the name of plaintiff firm therefore the plaintiff firm is entitled for payment. 13. No evidence contrary to the material placed on record was brought on record by the appellants defendants therefore from the

[2024:RJ-JP:27010]

[CFA-23/1994]

(5 of 5)

evidence on record, learned trial court has rightly decided issue Nos. 1 to 5 in favour of respondent (plaintiff) hence the findings on issue Nos. 1 to 5 are hereby affirmed.

¶56

In view of aforesaid, no case is made out for interference under Section 96 of CPC. As regard to scheme is concerned, when officials of appellant have transferred NSCs to in name of plaintiff firm then they are duty bound to pay money according to the promise made at the time of purchase of these NSCs, therefore the appellant cannot deny the payment to the plaintiffs.

¶57

In view of discussion made hereinabove, civil first appeal preferred aggrieved from Judgement dated 09.11.1993 in civil suit No.09/1992 passed by learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Karauli is hereby dismissed. The cross-objection filed by the plaintiff is also dismissed.

¶58

No order as to cost.

¶59

Decree be drawn accordingly.

¶60

Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶61

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶62

PREETI VALECHA /27

Union of India v. M/S Jhoomar Lal Swaroop Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. M/S Jhoomar Lal Swaroop Lal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayram S/O Ramlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Firoz Ahmed S/O Ayyaj Ahmed Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramphool S/O Rampal Vs Ramkunwar S/O Nanagram

Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Uptadan Nigam Vs M/S Nav Bharat Construction Co.

Gopal S/O Ratan Singh Vs Bhojraj Singh S/O Bhagwat Singh

Lokesh Dullar S/O Late Bhagirathmal, Vs Distt Collector Alwar