Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar Kanwar vs National Agricultural Cooperative on 7 August, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN, LD. ADJ-07,
SsOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
cS no: 10139/16
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative
(HEARING WAS DONE THROUGH CISCO WEBEX)
07.08.2020
ORDER IN THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 12 RULE 6
CPC RIW SECTION 151 CPC MOVED BY PLAINTIFF
1. Vide this order, | shall dispose of an application under
Order 12 Rule 6 rw section 151 CPC moved on behalf
of plaintiff seeking judgment on the basis of admission
made by the defendant.
2. Ld, Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff had
filed the present suit seeking retirement dues from the
defendant i.e. cash in lieu of earned and medical
leaves. It was argued that the defendant, though
admitted having withheld the retiral dues of the plaintiff,
however, it did not mention the amount being due to the
plaintiff under various heads, in the written statement.
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative d/
Scanned with CamScanner
Therefore, the plaintiff filed an application seeking
production of documents from the defendant and
seeking answer to various interrogatories from
defendant to know the amount due to the plaintiff and
other details, which application was allowed on
to
02.08.2018 and the documents and answer
interrogatories was filed and provided by the defendant
on 10.10.2018, wherein various amounts due to the
plaintiff has been admitted by the defendant. It is stated
that plaintiff superannuated on 28.02.2014.
3 It was further argued that defendant had admitted an - =
amount of Rs.8,57,150/- being due to the plaintiff in lieu
of earned leave and an amount of Rs.7,77,149/- being
due to the plaintiff in lieu of medical leave (totalling of
Rs. 16,34,299/-) however, the reason for withholding
the said amount has been averred by the defendant to
be the pendency of the criminal proceedings only. |
4. Ld counsel for plaintiff has argued that there are no
criminal proceedings pending against the plaintiff. The
| 2
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative WV
Scannet d with CamScanner
reference to criminal proceedings by the defendant is
only qua M/s Disha Impex Pvt Ltd against which an FIR
was registered at Bangalore and thereafter, a closure
report was filed by the police and the Court of Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore City by Order
dated 06.10.2017 had accepted the said closure report
and had dismissed the Protest Petition of the
defendant. The same is also evident from the
documents filed by the defendant now after order
passed by the Court on the application of plaintiff for
production of documents, and from the answer given by
the defendant to the interrogatories.
it was further argued that on perusal of the
Os
chargesheet/closure report, protest petition and order
dated 06.10.2017 passed by ACMM, Bangalore City, it
is apparent that there are absolutely no allegations
against the present plaintiff, and the only allegation of
the defendant in that case is against M/s Disha Impex
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative
Scannet d with CamScanner
Pvt Ltd and M/s Swarup Group of Industries regarding
siphoning of iron ore by the company.
It was further argued that the defendant vide its letter
dated 03.09.2013 had exonerated the plaintiff for the
show catise notice issued to the plaintiff in respect of
Mis Disha Impex Pvt Ltd. Further, there are no
disciplinary proceedings pending against the plaintiff as
on date. In any event, it is well settled Jaw that an
employer cannot withhold the retiral benefit of an
employee and more so, when neither there was nor
there is any departmental or other proceedings pending
against the plaintiff.
7. {t was further argued that there is no rule or regulation
which even authorize the defendant to initiate or even
continue any proceedings or enquiry against an
employee who had since retired. Hence, there being no
power vested with the defendant either to initiate or
continue enquiry or withhold the payment of retiral dues
Ashok Kumar Kanwer Vs National Agricultural Cooperative
Scannet d with CamScanner
after retirement, such withholding by defendant is illegal
and arbitrary.
He has placed reliance on B.P.Singh Vs NAFED &
Ors, decided on 09.08.2011 in order to support his
arguments.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff further argued that because of
pendency of criminal case or departmental
proceedings, terminal benefits cannot be withheld.
Hence, withholding of dues of plaintiff by defendant is
legal and without any authority of law. In this regard,
he had relied upon State of Jharkhand vs Jitendra
Kumar Srivastava (2013) 12 SCC 210, Ashok Kumar
VS NDPL 202 (2013) DLT 696, Dev Prakash Tiwari vs
U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board
MANU/SC/0532/2014.
10. It was further argued that review application filed by the
defendant before the Appellate Authority under the Multi
State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, has been
dismissed vide order dated 05.10.2018 and therefore,
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative A °
Scanned with CamScanner
11.
the order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the Appellate
Authority) quashing the Recovery Order dated
27.10.2011 and 02.06.2014 of the Central Registrar of
Co-operative Societies stands affirmed and therefore,
this ground is illusory and even otherwise is not
available now to the defendant to withhold the retiral
dues of the plaintiff.
lt was further argued that so far as the issue of
maintainability of the present suit is concerned, in light
of the objections taken by defendant regarding Section
84 of the Multi State Co-operative Scheme Act 2002, it
is submitted that the said Section talks about the
reference of disputes to arbitration only when the
disputes are such which touch the constitution
management or business of multi state cooperative
society. However, the present case is by an employee
against the multi state cooperative society claiming its
retiral dues, which dispute is not covered by Section 84
of the said Act. In this regard, the law is well settled that
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative WV 6
Scannet d with CamScanner
he word "Business" used in the act is equated with
actual trading or commerce or other business activity of
the muiti state cooperative society and it will not cover
the dispute in relation to the dues of an employee. He
has relied upon Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd Vs
Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Workers' Union 2006 (6)
SCC 80, Coop. Central Bank Ltd vs Addl. Industrial
Tribunal 3 (1969) 2 SCC 43, The Allahabad Dist. Co-
op Ltd vs Hanuman Dutt Tewari AIR 1982 SC 120,
Deccan Merchants Coop. Bank Ltd Vs Dalichand
Jugraj Jain AIR 1969 SC 1320.
12. it was further argued that similarly, the issue of
maintainability of present suit, as raised by defendant,
without giving notice to the Central Registrar in terms of
Section 115 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies
Act 2002 is not sustainable as section 115 talks about
giving of notice only when the suit is filed in respect of
any act touching the constitution, Management or
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative tv '
Scanned with CamScanner
. wR Secngencet
14.
usiness of the society, which is not so in the present
case.
Ld. counsel further submits that the admission made by
the defendant in the written statement and in the
answers to the interrogatories are unequivocal and
unambiguous and suit be decreed. In order to support,
the legal proposition under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC in his
favour, Ld counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon Rajiv
Ohri vs Anil Aggarwal MANU/DE/2611/2013, A. N.
Kaul vs Neerja Kaul & ORs, Zulfiqar Ali Khan vs
Straw Products LTd MANU /DE/03823/2000, Sharex
Acting through Vinod Kumar Chandha vs Smt
Sudershan Suri, MANU/DE/1273/2010, Madan Lal
Kaushik vs Shree Yog Mayaji Temple,
MANU/DE/1237/2011.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had submitted that plaintiff
wishes to restrict his claim in the suit to the claim raised
by plaintiff in this application and suit be decreed with
interest and cost. In this regard, an email was sent by
$
ee VV °
Aok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative
Scannet d with CamScanner
the counsel for plaintiff.
No reply to the said application was filed by the
defendant, however after the arguments were heard
through «=CISCOQ Webex from both sides, written
submissions were filed by both the parties.
Ld. counsel for defendant on the other hand had arqued
submits that an inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry
Committee in which it was found that plaintiff, was
responsible for causing deficiency to the assets of the
defendant to the tune of Rs.579.98 crores. He has
argued that on the basis of the inquiry report, the
Central Registrar of Co -operative Society ordered the
recovery for a sum of Rs.13.32 lacs against the plaintiff
on 27.10.2011 against which an appeal was preferred
and Appellate Authority vide its order dated 10.11.2014
quashed the recovery order passed by Central
Registrar of Co -operative Society on technical grounds
but it upheld the sanctity of the audit report and findings
of the Inquiry Committee.
3
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative Ww
Scanned with CamScanner
18.
Ld. counsel had further arqued that though the plaintiff's
counsel has filed an order dated 05.10.2018 apprising
about the dismissal of the review application, however,
he needs to revert back for the same as he has not
been able to receive any instructions from the
defendant in this regard due to ongoing pandemic.
Ld. counsel had further argued that the police complaint
was filed by the defendant which resulted in registration
of FIR with Karnataka Police. The closure report was
filed against which the Protest petition was preferred.
The protest petition was dismissed however, the
revision petition against the dismissal of the said protest
petition is pending disposal before the Sessions court,
Bangalore. It has further argued that plaintiff ts not
entitled to the amount as claimed by the plaintiff are
rightly withheld. Ld counsel has further argued that
there are no admissions in the written statement and
application is liable to be dismissed.
/ 10
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative t/
Scanned with CamScanner
La. counsel for the defendant further arqued that as per
section 84 of the said Act, disputes touching the
constitutian, management ar business of the Multi State
Co-operative Society is to be referred to arbitration, He
had further argued that Chapter V of the said Act talks
about the Direction and Management of the Multi Co-
operative Societies. Section 49 (2) (e) of the said act
clearly gives power to the Board to make provisions
Worn
regulating appointment pay scale, paying the
allowances and other condition of services including
disciplinary action to be taken against the employee of
Multi State Co-operative Society. Ld. counsel has
~
further argued that the action taken against any
employee falls within the ambit of dispute touching the
management of the society and therefore, the plaintiff is
clearly covered under section 84 and dispute is to be
referred to the arbitration.
20. Ld. counsel further argued that statutory notice is to be
given under section 115 of the said Act which was also
. 11
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative by
Scannet d with CamScanner
mes yer au wtiererore, the suit is bad for non-
compliance of Section 115 of the said Act. Ld counsel
for defendant has relied upon Krishak Bharti Co-
Operative Ltd Vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co.
Lid & Ors in support of his averments.
21. Ld. counsel for defendant argued that the application of
the plaintiff is frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. |
22. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff during rebuttal has argued
that he had filed an order dated 05.10.2018 and there is
no requirement of seeking instructions with respect to
the authenticity of that order. He has further argued that
order was of year 2018 and now it is year 2020. He has
further argued that arguments of the Ld counsel for the
defendant are completely baseless and therefore, the
application be allowed.
23. | have heard the arguments and have perused the
record carefully.
24. Certain admitted facts are as under:-
a. The date of appointment and terms of 'the
appointment of the plaintiff is not disputed.
12
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative t/
Scanned with CamScanner
disputed.
c. It is also an admitted fact that at the time of
superannuation of the plaintiff, no disciplinary
proceedings or inquiry was pending against him.
d. The answer to the interrogatories of plaintiff given by
the defendant are on record wherein an amount
withheld towards M.L. and E.L. has been given.
Therefore, it is not in doubt that the amount towards the
E.L. and M.L. has been withheld by the defendant.
25. The defendant has taken a defence that the said
amount has been withheld due to pendency of the
criminal proceedings.
26. It is pertinent to mention here at the outset itself that
this amount admitted by the defendant to have been
withheld is different from the amount of claim towards
earned leaves and medical leaves given in the plaint
however, after the arguments, Ld counsel for the
plaintiff has sent an email on the courts id stating that
the plaintiff wishes to restrict his claim to the amount
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative WV 8
Scanned with CamScanner
Hemuuncu ut wie appucation under Order 12 Rule 6
CPC alongwith interest.
7. Now, | proceed to decide whether the defence taken by
the defendant are tenable or not. First defence is of the
pendency of the criminal proceedings. The perusal of
the record shows that the recovery order was passed
by the Central Registrar against the plaintiff herein in
the year 2011, however, that order was challenged
before the Appellate Authority and the said recovery
order was quashed. The perusal of the record further
reveals that the said order of quashing of the recovery
order was on technical grounds however, the defendant
did not initiate any proceeding against the plaintiff
during his tenure of service with respect to the said
alleged misconduct.
28. It is pertinent to mention that the defendant has filed the
review application before the Appellate Authority against
quashing order however, the said review petition is
Stated to have dismissed on 05.10.2018. Ld counsel for
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs Nailonal Agricultural Cooperative 4 -
Scanned with CamScanner
the defendant has stated that he needs to verify the
same however, it is pertinent to mention here that the
order has been filed by the plaintiff. alongwith
application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC which was filed
in November 2018. No reply to the said application was
filed and now Ld counsel states that he needs to verify
the same. Since the order dated 05.10.2018 has been
filed on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the
same and in any case, the plaintiff shall bear the
consequences if the same is to be found to be false,
therefore, this argument cannot be accepted.
29. One limb of the action against the plaintiff was this
recovery order. Another one is a show cause notice
dated 20.03.2012 given by defendant to plaintiff.
30. In fact, the show cause notice dated 20.03.2012 was
issued to the plaintiff however, the defendant itself
exonerated the plaintiff of that show cause notice by
letter dated 03.09.2013 subject to the condition that the
said exoneration is subject to the outcome of the police
15
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative §/
Scanned with CamScanner
~
eee OODLE
investigation in the matter of M/s Disha Impex Pvt Ltd.
The order of exoneration is reproduced herein under for
better appreciation.
"whereas Sh. Ashok Kunwar, the then
Manager (TU) now GM (TU) HO was served
upon a show cause notice no.
HO/Vig/162/2011-12 dated 23.03.2012 for
alleged omissions and commissions in
business transaction with M/s Disha Impex
PVt Lid (DIPL) and M/s Swarup Group of
industries, the tie up associates of NAFED for
purchase and export of iron Ore during the
year 2003-2005.
And whereas, Sh. Ashok Kanwar submitted
his written statement dated 17.5.2012 In
response to above show cause notice, which
has thoroughly been examined.
And therefore, on careful consideration of
the reply alongwith relevant
documents/evidences submitted by Sh. Ashok
16
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative
Scannet d with CamScanner
Kanwar, it has been decided to exonerate Sh.
Ashok Kumar, the then Manager (now GM) in
respect of allegation levelled against him vide
Annex-l of the show cause notice dated
20.03.2012 ie in the matter of M/s Disha
Impex Pvt Ltd and Annex Il i.e. in the matter of
M/s Swarup Group of Industries, subject to the
condition, if Sh. Ashok Kanwar Is found
involved during the police investigation in the
matter of Disha Impex Pvt Ltd, he has to face
the consequences thereof".
32. Perusal of this letter clearly shows that all the internal
inguiries against the plaintiff were to put to rest
Consciously exoneration was made subject to police
investigation wherein it was clearly stated that in case
the accused is found involved during the police
investigation, he has to face the consequences. In my
humble opinion even if the plaintiff would have been
found to be involved in any such criminal case, he
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs Nationa! Agricultural Cooperative wv ut
Scanned with CamScanner
ould been faced them, but in mo manner that could
have been an impediment in) enjoyment of retiral
benefits by an employee/piaintiff, as no disciplinary
inquiry ar proceedings were ever initiated against him.
The careful perusal of the FIR or the chargesheet does
not show any allegations levelled by defendant against
the plaintiff.
33. The police carried out the investigation at Bangalore
and filed the closure report. Ld. Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate of Bangalore accepted the said closure
report and dismissed the complaint. The protest petition
was filed by the defendant challenging the acceptance
of the closure report but the said protest petition was
also dismissed. The defendant has taken a defence that
the revision petition against the dismissal of the said
protest petition is pending before the Sessions Court of
Bangalore. The question here is whether the pendency
of the revision petition can be the ground for withholding
the plaintiff's claim. In order to appreciate the same, it
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative L se
Scannet d with CamScanner
has to be seen whether they are any direct allegations
against the plaintiff in the protest petition.
Perusal of the entire protest petition shows that there is
no specific allegation of any misconduct against the
plaintiff herein, the only allegation is vague one which Is
in the manner below.
"it may not be out of place to mention
that there is a strong suspicion of
involvement of the -- officials of the
complainant and the same afe being
investigated as well".
35. These allegations are completely vague and by no
stretch of imagination, it can be said that the defendant
has levelled any allegation against the plaintiff herein.
There is no proximity between these allegations of
suspicion of involvement of officials of complainant and
actual involvement of plaintiff in the crime. Therefore,
19
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative WV
Scannet d with CamScanner
'the pendency of the review petition against the order of
dismissal of the protest petition passed by Ld. ACJM,
Bangalore is of no significance for deciding the present
application. The aforesaid discussion made above
makes it amply clear that there is no criminal
proceeding pending against the plaintiff and the
defendant cannot withheld the legitimate claim of the
plaintiff under the garb of pendency of any such
Criminal proceedings.
36. The plaintiff has relied upon three judgments in this
regard. As far as State of Jharkhand (supra) is
concerned in that case the encashment of leave was
also the issue but the entire judgment emphasized upon
the pension aspect which is not in the present case so
Strictly this is not applicable to the present case.
37. Further, in Ashok Kumar (Supra) case, it was held that
terminal benefits can be withheld only if there is a
finding of grave misconduct against the employee.
There is no such finding in the present case by any
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative / "
Scanned with CamScanner
38.
39.
AQ.
competent authority except an accusation which was
made but subsequently it was withdrawn by the
defendant itself by exonerating the plaintiff of the show
cause notice given to plaintiff. This case is squarely
applicable in the case in hand and thus, plaintiff is
entitled to this claim.
in Judgment of Dev Prakash (supra), it was a case of
deduction, not of withholding the benefit of retirement,
therefore, there is not applicable.
The second defence taken is with respect to the
maintainability of the suit in view of the section 84 of the
Multi Co-operative Societies Act. Ld. counsel for the
defendant has relied upon section 49 (2) (e) of the said
Act. The perusal of the section 49 (2) (e) of the said act
and section 84 of the said act shows that the
implications of both the sections have been
misconstrued by the Ld. counsel for the defendant.
Section 49 (2) (e) is with respect to the powers and
functions of the Board to make provisions for regulating
| | 21
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative WU
Scanned with CamScanner
the appointment of employees of the multi state
cooperative society and the scales of pay, allowances
and other conditions of service of, including the
disciplinary action against such employees.
Section 49:- Powers and Functions of
board.
Section A9 (2)(e) is reproduced
hereinunder:-
(1) The board may exercise all such powers as
may be necessary or expedient for the
purpose of carrying out its functions under
this Act. |
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing powers, such powers shall include
the power:-
XXXXXXX
(e) to make provisions for regulating the
appointment of employees of the multi state
cooperative society and the scales of pay,
allowances and other conditions of service of
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative hy 'e
Scanned with CamScanner
e appointment of employees of the multi state
cooperative society and the scales of pay, allowances
and other conditions of service of, including the
disciplinary action against such employees.
section 49:- Powers and Functions of
board.
Section 49 (2)(e) is reproduced
hereinunder:-
(1) The board may exercise all such powers as
may be necessary or expedient for the
purpose of carrying out its functions under
this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing powers, such powers shall include
the power:-
XXXXXXX
(e) to make provisions for regulating the
appointment of employees of the multi state
cooperative society and the scales of pay,
allowances and other conditions of service of
: 22
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative t/
Scanned with CamScanner
ncluding disciplinary action against such
employees;
XXXXX
Section 49 with respect to the powers. and
functions of the Board wherein the section 84 ts
with respect to reference of disputes.
The section 84 (1) and section (2) are
reproduced hereinunder:-
Reference of disputes:- .
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law for the time being in force, if any
disputes (other than a dispute regarding
disciplinary action taken by a multi state
cooperative society against its paid employee or
an industrial dispute as defined in clause (k) of
section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14
of 1947) touching the constitution, management
or business of a multi state cooperative society
arises.
(a) among members, past members and persons
. 2
Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative uy °
Scanned with CamScanner
ASHOK Rist
claiming through members, past members and
deceased members or
(b) between a member, past members and
persons claiming through a member, past
member or deceased member and the multi
state cooperative society, its board or any
officer, agent or employee of the muiti state
cooperative or liquidator, past or present or --
(c) between the multi state cooperative society
or its board and any past board, any officer,
agent or employee or any past officer, past
agent or past employee, heirs or legal
representatives of any deceased _ officer,
deceased agent or deceased employee of the
multi state cooperative or
(d) between the multi state cooperative society
and any other multi state cooperative society,
between a multi state cooperative society and
liquidator of another multi state cooperative
society or between the liquidator of one multi
é
24
i Karavar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative
Scanned with CamScanner
of
r
nd the liquidato
a
L.
i
state cooperation socie
the
Q),
ty
section
& Socie
multi state cooperativ
the purposes of sub
another
for
2.
following shall be deemed to be disputes
management or
the constitution,
touching
ty,
<
Ve SOc
tate cooperat
fos
*
e i business of a mul namely-
(a) a claim by VERE OSES Sraiyes society amount in Brand an Sat beino$ "ng tt wee %, tad yon. 'Reni, an ad io "pn as Sande "gs on "can yen Srecny ead Pree, Sng, ee ge tig "ad & Mery, rn, "ade Bron rv, weak St% ob Magen "oad oak wih $4 gn Lad ten 'he a $s % Lid ny heron ee * r rn. "eid pe "aad hand tL 'ad fen thy ms Raina, Maney such debt or sie ow eins whether nm connection x arising | ute Scanned with CamScanner Just on taking a glimpse of the section 84 (1) and 84 (2) as given above, it is clear that dispute between the employee and Multi Co-operative Society cannot come under the ambit of a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of the Multi State Co- operative Society. Section 84 (1) clearly states which disputes and between when, they shall be touching the constitution management or business of the Multi State Co-operative Society and section 84 (2) further clarifies which disputes can be deemed to be touching the constitution management or business of the Multi State Co-operative Society. Therefore, the linking of section 49 (2) (e) and section 84 by the Ld. counsel for the defendant is wrong interpretation and therefore, it is not tenable. The 'Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd (supra) relied upon by Ld counsel for plaintiff is squarely applicable to the case in hand. Section 55 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act which is akin to the section 26 Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative Scanned with CamScanner Ad.
4 of Multi State Co-operative Society Act has been discussed therein and similarly section 79 of the Punjab Cooperative Society Act which is similar to section 115 of the Multi State Co-operative Society Act has also been discussed, and the disputes between the employee and the cooperative societies have been said to be not the ones which touch the constitution management or business of the Multi State Co- operative Society.
As far as Krishak Bharti Co-Operative Ltd (supra) relied upon by Ld. counsel for the defendant is concerned, same is not applicable as in that case, the dispute was regarding the assets of the society and it was not between employee and the society. Therefore, neither the present case comes under section 84 nor the statutory notice as required under section 115 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act was to be served by plaintiff before filing the present suit. Therefore, suit is maintainable before this court.
27Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative VV Scanned with CamScanner oS yen offenmarse far the cake af Seessesiney it es Eyer oterawise for the Saxe af cresurming it fell aneler ~ xe ~ tS TRA F SECTOR Of, Necessary cansequence af which was that if Rasyed ten Eyes pp adorn erence A ke . P53 e FYSS Pealearreyss Ree SPyee sae Fate sptege Peyes Soekoldecstieirs oor 3 Hac ta Qe peferrsch to fhe arhirater, The Arbitration and statement of defence which was never done and straight away written statement was filed in the present case way back in 2016 and therefore, this defence ts not available to the defendant by any chance whatsoever.
Cie 46 The combined reading of the written statement and reply to the interrogatories given by the defendant finds presence of unequivocal and unambiguous admissions on the part of the defendant with respect to the claims of plaintiff.
47, In Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. Ltd VS Union Bank of India & Ors (2000) 7 SCC 120, a contention was raised on behalf of the Appellant, Uttam Singh Dugal that 28 shok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative Scannet d with CamScanner NN dmissions under Order XIl Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure should be only those which are made in the pleadings, and, in any event the expression "either in pleadings or othewise" should be interpreted ejusdem generis. Rejecting the aforesaid contention, the Supreme Court held that the Court should not unduly narrow down the application of the provisions of Order XI} Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment.
48. further in Madan Lal Kaushik (supra) as relied upon by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed :
"The ambit and scope of Order XII Rule 6 CPC is such that it confers almost sweeping powers on the Court to render speedy judgment in the suit to save the parties from going through the rigmarole of a protracted trial. As laid down in a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and of various High Courts, the only pre-requisite is 39 Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative V Scanned with CamScanner .
\ \ \ | ; that there must be admissions of fact arising in the sult, ether in the pleadings or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, and such admissions of fact must be clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. There is however, no requirement for such admissions of facts to be specific or express and even constructive admissions have been deemed sufficient to pronounce judgment thereon. Furthermore, such admissions, it is well settled, may be culled out from the pleadings of the parties "or otherwise" either by the Court or by any of the parties who may thereupon of its own motion move an application for pronouncement of judgment on the basis thereof. A duty is then cast on the Court to ascertain the admission of facts and to render judgment thereon, either in respect of the whole or a part of the claim made in the suit, after ascertaining whether the 30 Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative WV, Scannet d with CamScanner MM tit OOO 000 C624:
defence set up is such that it requires evidence for the determination of the issues or whether the defence is an irreconcilable one, rendering it well high impossible for the defendant to succeed even if the same is entertained. For the aforesaid purpose, it would be open to the Court to look into the admissions gathered even constructively for the purpose of rendering a speedy judgment, subject of course to the stipulation that the objections raised by the opposite party against rendering the judgment are such which do not go to the root of the matter and are inconsequential in nature, making it impossible for the objecting party to succeed even if entertained".
49. The admission are very clear in the written statement and answers to the interrogatories. The defence raised by defendant is sham. Hence, there is no impediment in passing a decree on the basis of admissions under
-- 31 Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative Nv Scannet d with CamScanner Order 12 Rule 6 CRC, An amount of Rs,16,34,299/- due to plaintiff has been legally withheld by the defendant. The application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is allowed. A decree for a sum of Rs, 16,34,299/- is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of suit till realization. Ordered accordingly.
Decreesheet be prepared. No order as to Cost.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED THROUGH CISCO WEBEX ON 07.08.2020
--- VANDIANASAIN) ADJ-07/SEISAKET COURTS! NEW DELHI/07.08.2020 Ashok Kumar Kanwar Vs National Agricultural Cooperative ~ Scanned with CamScanner