Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Ambuja Cements Limited vs . Nisha Gandhi & Another. on 27 June, 2024
M/s Ambuja Cements Limited vs. Nisha Gandhi & another.
.
CMPMO No.343 of 2024 27.06.2024 Present: Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
CMPMO No.343 of 2024 Notice. Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and seeks time to file reply.
On taking steps within two days, dasti notice for the service of respondent No. 2/proforma respondent be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner by 29.06.2024. The notice be returnable for 10.07.2024.
Reply be filed by respondent No. 1 before the next date of hearing.
List on 10.07.2024.
CMP No. 9622 of 2024Notice in the aforesaid terms.
The present petitioner is a defendant in the suit filed by respondent No. 1. The present petitioner/defendant in the suit had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023 with respondent No. 2/proforma defendant in the suit. The same is appended along with the present petition and appended with the plaint filed before the trial Court. The said Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the present petitioner and proforma defendant in the suit had also been entered into with other Cooperative Societies. It would be ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS1 prima facie cannot be made out from the MOU dated .
21.02.2023. Hence, prima facie based on MOU dated 21.02.2023 their exists no enforceable cause of action against the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 in the suit.
In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant/petitioner. Grave irreparable loss shall be occasioned to the applicant/petitioner, if further proceeding are permitted to be carried on. Therefore, further proceeding pending before the learned Civil Judge, Arki, District Solan, HP in Civil Suit No. 73 of 2024, titled r Prem Lal vs. M/s Ambuja Cements Limited, are stayed till further orders.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS the plaintiff to lift the material from its premises .
and it has been stopped to provide the job card/loading advice for transportation work and the same is continuing one since no job card/loading advice is being issued to him till date."
In the aforesaid backdrop, present petitioner/defendant No. 1 had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. One of the contentions raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is that there was no cause of action available to the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff for filing the suit against the present petitioner/defendant. The same had been raised keeping in view Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023. Relevant extract, whereof, has been reproduced hereinabove (supra).
Prima-facie from a reading of Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the MOU, it is evident that the agreement so entered into pertain to Single Axle Vehicles and Multi Axle Vehicle. However, so far as Multi Axle Vehicles are concerned, the same were limited to vehicles having 6 tyres and 12 tyres only.
It is a settled proposition of law that once a person becomes a member of a Cooperative Society, he looses his individuality qua the Society and he has no independent right except those given to him by the statute or bye laws. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment titled Daman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1985 Supreme Court 973.
Invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court at the behest of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff before the trial Court in his individual capacity specially when the Cooperative Society i.e. proforma respondent No. 2 has entered into an MOU with the petitioner for the benefit of his member prima facie appears to be impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Daman Singh's case stated (supra). Besides the aforesaid invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for permitting 16 tyres vehicles which are to be engaged by the petitioners/defendant No. ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS relevant to reproduce Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the .
Memorandum of Understanding. The same read as under:-
"1. The base rate for Single Axle Vehicles (SAV) is Rs. 10.30 PTPK and for Multi Axle Vehicles (MAV) shall be Rs. 9.30 PTPK (i.e. 9.70% discount on the base rate of SAV).
14. The transport cooperative societies shall deploy suitable vehicles (6 wheelers/12 wheelers) as per requirement and demand of the company for transportation of the Company's material, as per requirements of the Company, and shall not insist to deploy vehicles contrary to the requirements/demands of the Company".
Respondent No. 1/plaintiff have filed a suit before the learned trial Court seeking the following reliefs:-
. "(i) Pass a decree for declaration to the effect that the orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by defendant No. 1-Company to deny the work to 16 tyres vehicles owned by the plaintiff be declared as illegal, wrong, null, void and non-
est;
(ii) Pass a decree for mandatory injunction, thereby directing defendant No.1-Company to lift the check on 16 tyres vehicles of the plaintiff and further to provide transportation work to his vehicle bearing number HP11C-0126 on the rates as agreed vide Memorandum of understanding dated 21.02.2023 entered between defendant No. 1-Company and the proforma-defendant and other Transport Cooperative Societies till the revision rates;
(iii) Pass a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant No. 1-Company restraining it from implementing orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by it.
The paragraph w.r.t cause of action in the suit filed reads as follows:-
"That the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff on 11.05.2024 when defendant No. 1- Company has put a check/ban on the vehicle of ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS M/s Ambuja Cements Limited vs. Prem Lal & another .CMPMO No.366 of 2024
27.06.2024 Present: Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.1.CMPMO No.366 of 2024
Notice. Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and seeks time to file reply.
On taking steps within two days, dasti notice for the service of respondent No. 2/proforma respondent be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner by 29.06.2024. The notice be returnable for 10.07.2024.
Reply be filed by respondent No. 1 before the next date of hearing.
List on 10.07.2024.CMP No. 9982 of 2024
Notice in the aforesaid terms.
The present petitioner is a defendant in the suit filed by respondent No. 1. The present petitioner/defendant in the suit had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023 with respondent No. 2/proforma defendant in the suit. The same is appended along with the present petition and appended with the plaint filed before the trial Court. The said Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the present petitioner and proforma defendant in the suit had also been entered into with other Cooperative Societies. It would be ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS
1 prima facie cannot be made out from the MOU dated .
21.02.2023. Hence, prima facie based on MOU dated 21.02.2023 their exists no enforceable cause of action against the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 in the suit.
In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant/petitioner. Grave irreparable loss shall be occasioned to the applicant/petitioner, if further proceeding are permitted to be carried on. Therefore, further proceeding pending before the learned Civil Judge, Arki, District Solan, HP in Civil Suit No. 72 of 2024, titled r Desh Raj vs. M/s Ambuja Cements Limited, are stayed till further orders.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS the plaintiff to lift the material from its premises .
and it has been stopped to provide the job card/loading advice for transportation work and the same is continuing one since no job card/loading advice is being issued to him till date."
In the aforesaid backdrop, present petitioner/defendant No. 1 had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. One of the contentions raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is that there was no cause of action available to the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff for filing the suit against the present petitioner/defendant. The same had been raised keeping in view Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023. Relevant extract, whereof, has been reproduced hereinabove (supra).
Prima-facie from a reading of Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the MOU, it is evident that the agreement so entered into pertain to Single Axle Vehicles and Multi Axle Vehicle. However, so far as Multi Axle Vehicles are concerned, the same were limited to vehicles having 6 tyres and 12 tyres only.
It is a settled proposition of law that once a person becomes a member of a Cooperative Society, he looses his individuality qua the Society and he has no independent right except those given to him by the statute or bye laws. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment titled Daman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1985 Supreme Court 973.
Invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court at the behest of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff before the trial Court in his individual capacity specially when the Cooperative Society i.e. proforma respondent No. 2 has entered into an MOU with the petitioner for the benefit of his member prima facie appears to be impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Daman Singh's case stated (supra). Besides the aforesaid invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for permitting 16 tyres vehicles which are to be engaged by the petitioners/defendant No. ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS relevant to reproduce Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the .
Memorandum of Understanding. The same read as under:-
"1. The base rate for Single Axle Vehicles (SAV) is Rs. 10.30 PTPK and for Multi Axle Vehicles (MAV) shall be Rs. 9.30 PTPK (i.e. 9.70% discount on the base rate of SAV).
14. The transport cooperative societies shall deploy suitable vehicles (6 wheelers/12 wheelers) as per requirement and demand of the company for transportation of the Company's material, as per requirements of the Company, and shall not insist to deploy vehicles contrary to the requirements/demands of the Company".
Respondent No. 1/plaintiff have filed a suit before the learned trial Court seeking the following reliefs:-
. "(i) Pass a decree for declaration to the effect that the orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by defendant No. 1-Company to deny the work to 16 tyres vehicles owned by the plaintiff be declared as illegal, wrong, null, void and non-
est;
(ii) Pass a decree for mandatory injunction, thereby directing defendant No.1-Company to lift the check on 16 tyres vehicles of the plaintiff and further to provide transportation work to his vehicle bearing number HP11C-0126 on the rates as agreed vide Memorandum of understanding dated 21.02.2023 entered between defendant No. 1-Company and the proforma-defendant and other Transport Cooperative Societies till the revision rates;
(iii) Pass a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant No. 1-Company restraining it from implementing orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by it.
The paragraph w.r.t cause of action in the suit filed reads as follows:-
"That the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff on 11.05.2024 when defendant No. 1- Company has put a check/ban on the vehicle of ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS M/s Ambuja Cements Limited vs. Desh Raj & another .CMPMO No.355 of 2024
27.06.2024 Present: Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.1.CMPMO No.355 of 2024
Notice. Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and seeks time to file reply.
On taking steps within two days, dasti notice for the service of respondent No. 2/proforma respondent be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner by 29.06.2024. The notice be returnable for 10.07.2024.
Reply be filed by respondent No. 1 before the next date of hearing.
List on 10.07.2024.CMP No. 9801 of 2024
Notice in the aforesaid terms.
The present petitioner is a defendant in the suit filed by respondent No. 1. The present petitioner/defendant in the suit had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023 with respondent No. 2/proforma defendant in the suit. The same is appended along with the present petition and appended with the plaint filed before the trial Court. The said Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the present petitioner and proforma defendant in the suit had also been entered into with other Cooperative Societies. It would be ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS
No. 1 prima facie cannot be made out from the MOU dated .
21.02.2023. Hence, prima facie based on MOU dated 21.02.2023 their exists no enforceable cause of action against the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 in the suit.
In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant/petitioner. Grave irreparable loss shall be occasioned to the applicant/petitioner, if further proceeding are permitted to be carried on. Therefore, further proceeding pending before the learned Civil Judge, Arki, District Solan, HP in Civil Suit No. 55 of 2024, titled r Jamna Devi vs. M/s Ambuja Cements Limited, are stayed till further orders.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS the plaintiff to lift the material from its premises .
and it has been stopped to provide the job card/loading advice for transportation work and the same is continuing one since no job card/loading advice is being issued to him till date."
In the aforesaid backdrop, present petitioner/defendant No. 1 had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. One of the contentions raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is that there was no cause of action available to the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff for filing the suit against the present petitioner/defendant. The same had been raised keeping in view Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023. Relevant extract, whereof, has been reproduced hereinabove (supra).
Prima-facie from a reading of Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the MOU, it is evident that the agreement so entered into pertain to Single Axle Vehicles and Multi Axle Vehicle. However, so far as Multi Axle Vehicles are concerned, the same were limited to vehicles having 6 tyres and 12 tyres only.
It is a settled proposition of law that once a person becomes a member of a Cooperative Society, he looses his individuality qua the Society and he has no independent right except those given to him by the statute or bye laws. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment titled Daman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1985 Supreme Court 973.
Invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court at the behest of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff before the trial Court in his individual capacity specially when the Cooperative Society i.e. proforma respondent No. 2 has entered into an MOU with the petitioner for the benefit of his member prima facie appears to be impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Daman Singh's case stated (supra). Besides the aforesaid invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for permitting 16 tyres vehicles which are to be engaged by the petitioners/defendant ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS relevant to reproduce Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the .
Memorandum of Understanding. The same read as under:-
"1. The base rate for Single Axle Vehicles (SAV) is Rs. 10.30 PTPK and for Multi Axle Vehicles (MAV) shall be Rs. 9.30 PTPK (i.e. 9.70% discount on the base rate of SAV).
14. The transport cooperative societies shall deploy suitable vehicles (6 wheelers/12 wheelers) as per requirement and demand of the company for transportation of the Company's material, as per requirements of the Company, and shall not insist to deploy vehicles contrary to the requirements/demands of the Company".
Respondent No. 1/plaintiff have filed a suit before the learned trial Court seeking the following reliefs:-
. "(i) Pass a decree for declaration to the effect that the orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by defendant No. 1-Company to deny the work to 16 tyres vehicles owned by the plaintiff be declared as illegal, wrong, null, void and non-
est;
(ii) Pass a decree for mandatory injunction, thereby directing defendant No.1-Company to lift the check on 16 tyres vehicles of the plaintiff and further to provide transportation work to his vehicle bearing number HP11C-0126 on the rates as agreed vide Memorandum of understanding dated 21.02.2023 entered between defendant No. 1-Company and the proforma-defendant and other Transport Cooperative Societies till the revision rates;
(iii) Pass a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant No. 1-Company restraining it from implementing orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by it.
The paragraph w.r.t cause of action in the suit filed reads as follows:-
"That the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff on 11.05.2024 when defendant No. 1- Company has put a check/ban on the vehicle of ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS M/s Ambuja Cements Limited vs. Jamna & another .CMPMO No.354 of 2024
27.06.2024 Present: Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.1.CMPMO No.354 of 2024
Notice. Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and seeks time to file reply.
On taking steps within two days, dasti notice for the service of respondent No. 2/proforma respondent be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner by 29.06.2024. The notice be returnable for 10.07.2024.
Reply be filed by respondent No. 1 before the next date of hearing.
List on 10.07.2024.CMP No. 9800 of 2024
Notice in the aforesaid terms.
The present petitioner is a defendant in the suit filed by respondent No. 1. The present petitioner/defendant in the suit had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023 with respondent No. 2/proforma defendant in the suit. The same is appended along with the present petition and appended with the plaint filed before the trial Court. The said Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the present petitioner and proforma defendant in the suit had also been entered into with other Cooperative Societies. It would be ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS
petitioners/defendant No. 1 prima facie cannot be made out .
from the MOU dated 21.02.2023. Hence, prima facie based on MOU dated 21.02.2023 their exists no enforceable cause of action against the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 in the suit.
In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant/petitioner. Grave irreparable loss shall be occasioned to the applicant/petitioner, if further proceeding are permitted to be carried on. Therefore, further proceeding pending before the learned Civil Judge, Arki, District Solan, HP in Civil Suit No. 59 of 2024, titled Neema Devi vs. M/s Ambuja Cements Limited, are stayed till further orders.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS the plaintiff to lift the material from its premises .
and it has been stopped to provide the job card/loading advice for transportation work and the same is continuing one since no job card/loading advice is being issued to him till date."
In the aforesaid backdrop, present petitioner/defendant No. 1 had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. One of the contentions raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is that there was no cause of action available to the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff for filing the suit against the present petitioner/defendant. The same had been raised keeping in view Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023. Relevant extract, whereof, has been reproduced hereinabove (supra).
Prima-facie from a reading of Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the MOU, it is evident that the agreement so entered into pertain to Single Axle Vehicles and Multi Axle Vehicle. However, so far as Multi Axle Vehicles are concerned, the same were limited to vehicles having 6 tyres and 12 tyres only.
It is a settled proposition of law that once a person becomes a member of a Cooperative Society, he looses his individuality qua the Society and he has no independent right except those given to him by the statute or bye laws. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment titled Daman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1985 Supreme Court 973.
Invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court at the behest of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff before the trial Court in his individual capacity specially when the Cooperative Society i.e. proforma respondent No. 2 has entered into an MOU with the petitioner for the benefit of his member prima facie appears to be impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Daman Singh's case stated (supra). Besides the aforesaid invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for permitting 16 tyres vehicles which are to be engaged by the ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS relevant to reproduce Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the .
Memorandum of Understanding. The same read as under:-
"1. The base rate for Single Axle Vehicles (SAV) is Rs. 10.30 PTPK and for Multi Axle Vehicles (MAV) shall be Rs. 9.30 PTPK (i.e. 9.70% discount on the base rate of SAV).
14. The transport cooperative societies shall deploy suitable vehicles (6 wheelers/12 wheelers) as per requirement and demand of the company for transportation of the Company's material, as per requirements of the Company, and shall not insist to deploy vehicles contrary to the requirements/demands of the Company".
Respondent No. 1/plaintiff have filed a suit before the learned trial Court seeking the following reliefs:-
. "(i) Pass a decree for declaration to the effect that the orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by defendant No. 1-Company to deny the work to 16 tyres vehicles owned by the plaintiff be declared as illegal, wrong, null, void and non-
est;
(ii) Pass a decree for mandatory injunction, thereby directing defendant No.1-Company to lift the check on 16 tyres vehicles of the plaintiff and further to provide transportation work to his vehicle bearing number HP11C-0126 on the rates as agreed vide Memorandum of understanding dated 21.02.2023 entered between defendant No. 1-Company and the proforma-defendant and other Transport Cooperative Societies till the revision rates;
(iii) Pass a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant No. 1-Company restraining it from implementing orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by it.
The paragraph w.r.t cause of action in the suit filed reads as follows:-
"That the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff on 11.05.2024 when defendant No. 1- Company has put a check/ban on the vehicle of ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS M/s Ambuja Cements Limited vs. Neema Devi & another .CMPMO No.353 of 2024
27.06.2024 Present: Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.1.CMPMO No.353 of 2024
Notice. Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and seeks time to file reply.
On taking steps within two days, dasti notice for the service of respondent No. 2/proforma defendant be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner by 29.06.2024. The notice be returnable for 10.07.2024.
Reply be filed by respondent No. 1 before the next date of hearing.
List on 10.07.2024.CMP No. 9794 of 2024
Notice in the aforesaid terms.
The present petitioner is a defendant in the suit filed by respondent No. 1. The present petitioner/defendant in the suit had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023 with respondent No. 2/proforma defendant in the suit. The same is appended along with the present petition and appended with the plaint filed before the trial Court. The said Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the present petitioner and proforma defendant in the suit had also been entered into with other Cooperative Societies. It would be ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS
Lal vs. M/s Ambuja Cements Limited, are stayed till further .
orders.
(Bipin C. Negi)
Judge
June 27, 2024
tarun
r to
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS
Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding .
dated 21.02.2023. Relevant extract, whereof, has been reproduced hereinabove (supra).
Prima-facie from a reading of Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the MOU, it is evident that the agreement so entered into pertain to Single Axle Vehicles and Multi Axle Vehicle. However, so far as Multi Axle Vehicles are concerned, the same were limited to vehicles having 6 tyres and 12 tyres only.
It is a settled proposition of law that once a person becomes a member of a Cooperative Society, he looses his individuality qua the Society and he has no independent right except those given to him by the statute or bye laws. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment titled Daman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1985 Supreme Court 973.
Invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court at the behest of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff before the trial Court in his individual capacity specially when the Cooperative Society i.e. proforma respondent No. 2 has entered into an MOU with the petitioner for the benefit of his member prima facie appears to be impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Daman Singh's case stated (supra). Besides the aforesaid invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for permitting 16 tyres vehicles which are to be engaged by the petitioners/defendant No. 1 prima facie cannot be made out from the MOU dated 21.02.2023. Hence, prima facie based on MOU dated 21.02.2023 their exists no enforceable cause of action against the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 in the suit.
In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant/petitioner. Grave irreparable loss shall be occasioned to the applicant/petitioner, if further proceeding are permitted to be carried on. Therefore, further proceeding pending before the learned Civil Judge, Arki, District Solan, HP in Civil Suit No. 60 of 2024, titled Shyam ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS Respondent No. 1/plaintiff have filed a suit before .
the learned trial Court seeking the following reliefs:-
. "(i) Pass a decree for declaration to the effect that the orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by defendant No. 1-Company to deny the work to 16 tyres vehicles owned by the plaintiff be declared as illegal, wrong, null, void and non- est;
(ii) Pass a decree for mandatory injunction, thereby directing defendant No.1-Company to lift the check on 16 tyres vehicles of the plaintiff and further to provide transportation work to his vehicle bearing number HP11C-0126 on the rates as agreed vide Memorandum of understanding dated 21.02.2023 entered between defendant No. 1-Company and the proforma-defendant and other Transport Cooperative Societies till the revision rates;
(iii) Pass a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant No. 1-Company restraining it from implementing orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by it.
The paragraph w.r.t cause of action in the suit filed reads as follows:-
"That the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff on 11.05.2024 when defendant No. 1- Company has put a check/ban on the vehicle of the plaintiff to lift the material from its premises and it has been stopped to provide the job card/loading advice for transportation work and the same is continuing one since no job card/loading advice is being issued to him till date."
In the aforesaid backdrop, present petitioner/defendant No. 1 had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. One of the contentions raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is that there was no cause of action available to the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff for filing the suit against the present petitioner/defendant. The same had been raised keeping in view ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS M/s Ambuja Cements Limited vs. Shyam Lal & another .
CMPMO No.367 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
CMPMO No.367 of 2024On taking steps within two days, dasti notice for the service of respondents be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner by 29.06.2024. The notice be returnable for 10.07.2024.
List on 10.07.2024.
CMP No. 9984 of 2024Notice in the aforesaid terms.
The present petitioner is a defendant in the suit filed by respondent No. 1. The present petitioner/defendant in the suit had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023 with respondent No. 2/proforma defendant in the suit. The same is appended along with the present petition and appended with the plaint filed before the trial Court. The said Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the present petitioner and proforma defendant in the suit had also been entered into with other Cooperative Societies. It would be relevant to reproduce Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding. The same read as under:-
"1. The base rate for Single Axle Vehicles (SAV) is Rs. 10.30 PTPK and for Multi Axle Vehicles (MAV) shall be Rs. 9.30 PTPK (i.e. 9.70% discount on the base rate of SAV).
14. The transport cooperative societies shall deploy suitable vehicles (6 wheelers/12 wheelers) as per requirement and demand of the company for transportation of the Company's material, as per requirements of the Company, and shall not insist to deploy vehicles contrary to the requirements/demands of the Company".
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS.
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISSingh Thakur vs. M/s Ambuja Cements Limited, are stayed till .
further orders.
(Bipin C. Negi)
Judge
June 27, 2024
tarun
r to
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS
Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding .
dated 21.02.2023. Relevant extract, whereof, has been reproduced hereinabove (supra).
Prima-facie from a reading of Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the MOU, it is evident that the agreement so entered into pertain to Single Axle Vehicles and Multi Axle Vehicle. However, so far as Multi Axle Vehicles are concerned, the same were limited to vehicles having 6 tyres and 12 tyres only.
It is a settled proposition of law that once a person becomes a member of a Cooperative Society, he looses his individuality qua the Society and he has no independent right except those given to him by the statute or bye laws. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment titled Daman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1985 Supreme Court 973.
Invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court at the behest of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff before the trial Court in his individual capacity specially when the Cooperative Society i.e. proforma respondent No. 2 has entered into an MOU with the petitioner for the benefit of his member prima facie appears to be impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Daman Singh's case stated (supra). Besides the aforesaid invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for permitting 16 tyres vehicles which are to be engaged by the petitioners/defendant No. 1 prima facie cannot be made out from the MOU dated 21.02.2023. Hence, prima facie based on MOU dated 21.02.2023 their exists no enforceable cause of action against the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 in the suit.
In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant/petitioner. Grave irreparable loss shall be occasioned to the applicant/petitioner, if further proceeding are permitted to be carried on. Therefore, further proceeding pending before the learned Civil Judge, Arki, District Solan, HP in Civil Suit No. 67 of 2024, titled Madan ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS Respondent No. 1/plaintiff have filed a suit before .
the learned trial Court seeking the following reliefs:-
. "(i) Pass a decree for declaration to the effect that the orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by defendant No. 1-Company to deny the work to 16 tyres vehicles owned by the plaintiff be declared as illegal, wrong, null, void and non- est;
(ii) Pass a decree for mandatory injunction, thereby directing defendant No.1-Company to lift the check on 16 tyres vehicles of the plaintiff and further to provide transportation work to his vehicle bearing number HP11C-0126 on the rates as agreed vide Memorandum of understanding dated 21.02.2023 entered between defendant No. 1-Company and the proforma-defendant and other Transport Cooperative Societies till the revision rates;
(iii) Pass a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant No. 1-Company restraining it from implementing orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by it.
The paragraph w.r.t cause of action in the suit filed reads as follows:-
"That the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff on 11.05.2024 when defendant No. 1- Company has put a check/ban on the vehicle of the plaintiff to lift the material from its premises and it has been stopped to provide the job card/loading advice for transportation work and the same is continuing one since no job card/loading advice is being issued to him till date."
In the aforesaid backdrop, present petitioner/defendant No. 1 had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. One of the contentions raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is that there was no cause of action available to the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff for filing the suit against the present petitioner/defendant. The same had been raised keeping in view ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS M/s Ambuja Cements Limited .
vs. Madan Singh Thakur another CMPMO No.349 of 2024 27.06.2024 Present: Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
CMPMO No.349 of 2024On taking steps within two days, dasti notice for the service of respondents be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner by 29.06.2024. The notice be returnable for 10.07.2024.r List on 10.07.2024.
CMP No. 9751 of 2024Notice in the aforesaid terms.
The present petitioner is a defendant in the suit filed by respondent No. 1. The present petitioner/defendant in the suit had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023 with respondent No. 2/proforma defendant in the suit. The same is appended along with the present petition and appended with the plaint filed before the trial Court. The said Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the present petitioner and proforma defendant in the suit had also been entered into with other Cooperative Societies. It would be relevant to reproduce Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding. The same read as under:-
"1. The base rate for Single Axle Vehicles (SAV) is Rs. 10.30 PTPK and for Multi Axle Vehicles (MAV) shall be Rs. 9.30 PTPK (i.e. 9.70% discount on the base rate of SAV).
14. The transport cooperative societies shall deploy suitable vehicles (6 wheelers/12 wheelers) as per requirement and demand of the company for transportation of the Company's material, as per requirements of the Company, and shall not insist to deploy vehicles contrary to the requirements/demands of the Company".
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS.
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIScarried on. Therefore, further proceeding pending before the .
learned Civil Judge, Arki, District Solan, HP in Civil Suit No. 62 of 2024, titled Uma Devi vs. M/s Ambuja Cements Limited, are stayed till further orders.
(Bipin C. Negi)
Judge
June 27, 2024
tarun
r to
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS
keeping in view Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum .
of Understanding dated 21.02.2023. Relevant extract, whereof, has been reproduced hereinabove (supra).
Prima-facie from a reading of Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the MOU, it is evident that the agreement so entered into pertain to Single Axle Vehicles and Multi Axle Vehicle. However, so far as Multi Axle Vehicles are concerned, the same were limited to vehicles having 6 tyres and 12 tyres only.
It is a settled proposition of law that once a person becomes a member of a Cooperative Society, he looses his individuality qua the Society and he has no independent right except those given to him by the statute or bye laws. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment titled Daman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1985 Supreme Court 973.
Invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court at the behest of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff before the trial Court in his individual capacity specially when the Cooperative Society i.e. proforma respondent No. 2 has entered into an MOU with the petitioner for the benefit of his member prima facie appears to be impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Daman Singh's case stated (supra). Besides the aforesaid invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for permitting 16 tyres vehicles which are to be engaged by the petitioners/defendant No. 1 prima facie cannot be made out from the MOU dated 21.02.2023. Hence, prima facie based on MOU dated 21.02.2023 their exists no enforceable cause of action against the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 in the suit.
In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant/petitioner. Grave irreparable loss shall be occasioned to the applicant/petitioner, if further proceeding are permitted to be ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS Respondent No. 1/plaintiff have filed a suit before .
the learned trial Court seeking the following reliefs:-
. "(i) Pass a decree for declaration to the effect that the orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by defendant No. 1-Company to deny the work to 16 tyres vehicles owned by the plaintiff be declared as illegal, wrong, null, void and non- est;
(ii) Pass a decree for mandatory injunction, thereby directing defendant No.1-Company to lift the check on 16 tyres vehicles of the plaintiff and further to provide transportation work to his vehicle bearing number HP11C-0126 on the rates as agreed vide Memorandum of understanding dated 21.02.2023 entered between defendant No. 1-Company and the proforma-defendant and other Transport Cooperative Societies till the revision rates;
(iii) Pass a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant No. 1-Company restraining it from implementing orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by it.
The paragraph w.r.t cause of action in the suit filed reads as follows:-
"That the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff on 11.05.2024 when defendant No. 1- Company has put a check/ban on the vehicle of the plaintiff to lift the material from its premises and it has been stopped to provide the job card/loading advice for transportation work and the same is continuing one since no job card/loading advice is being issued to him till date."
In the aforesaid backdrop, present petitioner/defendant No. 1 had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. One of the contentions raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is that there was no cause of action available to the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff for filing the suit against the present petitioner/defendant. The same had been raised ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS M/s Ambuja Cements Limited vs. Uma Devi & another .
CMPMO No.344 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
CMPMO No.344 of 2024On taking steps within two days, dasti notice for the service of respondents be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner by 29.06.2024. The notice be returnable for 10.07.2024.
List on 10.07.2024.
CMP No. 9623 of 2024Notice in the aforesaid terms.
The present petitioner is a defendant in the suit filed by respondent No. 1. The present petitioner/defendant in the suit had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023 with respondent No. 2/proforma defendant in the suit. The same is appended along with the present petition and appended with the plaint filed before the trial Court. The said Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the present petitioner and proforma defendant in the suit had also been entered into with other Cooperative Societies. It would be relevant to reproduce Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding. The same read as under:-
"1. The base rate for Single Axle Vehicles (SAV) is Rs. 10.30 PTPK and for Multi Axle Vehicles (MAV) shall be Rs. 9.30 PTPK (i.e. 9.70% discount on the base rate of SAV).
14. The transport cooperative societies shall deploy suitable vehicles (6 wheelers/12 wheelers) as per requirement and demand of the company for transportation of the Company's material, as per requirements of the Company, and shall not insist to deploy vehicles contrary to the requirements/demands of the Company".
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS.
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISRam vs. M/s Ambuja Cements Limited, are stayed till further .
orders.
(Bipin C. Negi)
Judge
June 27, 2024
tarun
r to
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS
keeping in view Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum of .
Understanding dated 21.02.2023. Relevant extract, whereof, has been reproduced hereinabove (supra).
Prima-facie from a reading of Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the MOU, it is evident that the agreement so entered into pertain to Single Axle Vehicles and Multi Axle Vehicle. However, so far as Multi Axle Vehicles are concerned, the same were limited to vehicles having 6 tyres and 12 tyres only.
It is a settled proposition of law that once a person becomes a member of a Cooperative Society, he looses his individuality qua the Society and he has no independent right except those given to him by the statute or bye laws. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment titled Daman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1985 Supreme Court 973.
Invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court at the behest of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff before the trial Court in his individual capacity specially when the Cooperative Society i.e. proforma respondent No. 2 has entered into an MOU with the petitioner for the benefit of his member prima facie appears to be impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Daman Singh's case stated (supra). Besides the aforesaid invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for permitting 16 tyres vehicles which are to be engaged by the petitioners/defendant No. 1 prima facie cannot be made out from the MOU dated 21.02.2023. Hence, prima facie based on MOU dated 21.02.2023 their exists no enforceable cause of action against the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 in the suit.
In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant/petitioner. Grave irreparable loss shall be occasioned to the applicant/petitioner, if further proceeding are permitted to be carried on. Therefore, further proceeding pending before the learned Civil Judge, Arki, District Solan, HP in Civil Suit No. 54 of 2024, titled Mela ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS Respondent No. 1/plaintiff have filed a suit before .
the learned trial Court seeking the following reliefs:-
. "(i) Pass a decree for declaration to the effect that the orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by defendant No. 1-Company to deny the work to 16 tyres vehicles owned by the plaintiff be declared as illegal, wrong, null, void and non- est;
(ii) Pass a decree for mandatory injunction, thereby directing defendant No.1-Company to lift the check on 16 tyres vehicles of the plaintiff and further to provide transportation work to his vehicle bearing number HP11C-0126 on the rates as agreed vide Memorandum of understanding dated 21.02.2023 entered between defendant No. 1-Company and the proforma-defendant and other Transport Cooperative Societies till the revision rates;
(iii) Pass a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant No. 1-Company restraining it from implementing orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by it.
The paragraph w.r.t cause of action in the suit filed reads as follows:-
"That the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff on 11.05.2024 when defendant No. 1- Company has put a check/ban on the vehicle of the plaintiff to lift the material from its premises and it has been stopped to provide the job card/loading advice for transportation work and the same is continuing one since no job card/loading advice is being issued to him till date."
In the aforesaid backdrop, present petitioner/defendant No. 1 had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. One of the contentions raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is that there was no cause of action available to the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff for filing the suit against the present petitioner/defendant. The same had been raised ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS M/s Ambuja Cements Limited vs. Mela Ram & another .
CMPMO No.341 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
CMPMO No.341 of 2024On taking steps within two days, dasti notice for the service of respondents be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner by 29.06.2024. The notice be returnable for 10.07.2024.
List on 10.07.2024.
CMP No. 4620 of 2024Notice in the aforesaid terms.
The present petitioner is a defendant in the suit filed by respondent No. 1. The present petitioner/defendant in the suit had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023 with respondent No. 2/proforma defendant in the suit. The same is appended along with the present petition and appended with the plaint filed before the trial Court. The said Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the present petitioner and proforma defendant in the suit had also been entered into with other Cooperative Societies. It would be relevant to reproduce Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding. The same read as under:-
"1. The base rate for Single Axle Vehicles (SAV) is Rs. 10.30 PTPK and for Multi Axle Vehicles (MAV) shall be Rs. 9.30 PTPK (i.e. 9.70% discount on the base rate of SAV).
14. The transport cooperative societies shall deploy suitable vehicles (6 wheelers/12 wheelers) as per requirement and demand of the company for transportation of the Company's material, as per requirements of the Company, and shall not insist to deploy vehicles contrary to the requirements/demands of the Company".
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS.
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIScarried on. Therefore, further proceeding pending before the .
learned Civil Judge, Arki, District Solan, HP in Civil Suit No. 60 of 2024, titled Shyam Lal vs. M/s Ambuja Cements Limited, are stayed till further orders.
(Bipin C. Negi)
Judge
June 27, 2024
tarun
r to
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS
keeping in view Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum .
of Understanding dated 21.02.2023. Relevant extract, whereof, has been reproduced hereinabove (supra).
Prima-facie from a reading of Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the MOU, it is evident that the agreement so entered into pertain to Single Axle Vehicles and Multi Axle Vehicle. However, so far as Multi Axle Vehicles are concerned, the same were limited to vehicles having 6 tyres and 12 tyres only.
It is a settled proposition of law that once a person becomes a member of a Cooperative Society, he looses his individuality qua the Society and he has no independent right except those given to him by the statute or bye laws. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment titled Daman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1985 Supreme Court 973.
Invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court at the behest of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff before the trial Court in his individual capacity specially when the Cooperative Society i.e. proforma respondent No. 2 has entered into an MOU with the petitioner for the benefit of his member prima facie appears to be impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Daman Singh's case stated (supra). Besides the aforesaid invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for permitting 16 tyres vehicles which are to be engaged by the petitioners/defendant No. 1 prima facie cannot be made out from the MOU dated 21.02.2023. Hence, prima facie based on MOU dated 21.02.2023 their exists no enforceable cause of action against the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 in the suit.
In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant/petitioner. Grave irreparable loss shall be occasioned to the applicant/petitioner, if further proceeding are permitted to be ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS Respondent No. 1/plaintiff have filed a suit before .
the learned trial Court seeking the following reliefs:-
. "(i) Pass a decree for declaration to the effect that the orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by defendant No. 1-Company to deny the work to 16 tyres vehicles owned by the plaintiff be declared as illegal, wrong, null, void and non- est;
(ii) Pass a decree for mandatory injunction, thereby directing defendant No.1-Company to lift the check on 16 tyres vehicles of the plaintiff and further to provide transportation work to his vehicle bearing number HP11C-0126 on the rates as agreed vide Memorandum of understanding dated 21.02.2023 entered between defendant No. 1-Company and the proforma-defendant and other Transport Cooperative Societies till the revision rates;
(iii) Pass a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant No. 1-Company restraining it from implementing orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by it.
The paragraph w.r.t cause of action in the suit filed reads as follows:-
"That the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff on 11.05.2024 when defendant No. 1- Company has put a check/ban on the vehicle of the plaintiff to lift the material from its premises and it has been stopped to provide the job card/loading advice for transportation work and the same is continuing one since no job card/loading advice is being issued to him till date."
In the aforesaid backdrop, present petitioner/defendant No. 1 had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. One of the contentions raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is that there was no cause of action available to the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff for filing the suit against the present petitioner/defendant. The same had been raised ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS M/s Ambuja Cements Limited vs. Shyam Lal & another .
CMPMO No.367 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
CMPMO No.367 of 2024On taking steps within two days, dasti notice for the service of respondents be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner by 29.06.2024. The notice be returnable for 10.07.2024.
List on 10.07.2024.
CMP No. 9984 of 2024Notice in the aforesaid term.
The present petitioner is a defendant in the suit filed by respondent No. 1. The present petitioner/defendant in the suit had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023 with respondent No. 2/proforma defendant in the suit. The same is appended along with the present petition and appended with the plaint filed before the trial Court. The said Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the present petitioner and proforma defendant in the suit had also been entered into with other Cooperative Societies. It would be relevant to reproduce Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding. The same read as under:-
"1. The base rate for Single Axle Vehicles (SAV) is Rs. 10.30 PTPK and for Multi Axle Vehicles (MAV) shall be Rs. 9.30 PTPK (i.e. 9.70% discount on the base rate of SAV).
14. The transport cooperative societies shall deploy suitable vehicles (6 wheelers/12 wheelers) as per requirement and demand of the company for transportation of the Company's material, as per requirements of the Company, and shall not insist to deploy vehicles contrary to the requirements/demands of the Company".
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS.
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISirreparable loss shall be occasioned to the applicant/petitioner, .
if further proceeding are permitted to be carried on. Therefore, further proceeding pending before the learned Civil Judge, Arki, District Solan, HP in Civil Suit No. 64 of 2024, titled Sunita Sharma vs. M/s Ambuja Cements Limited, are stayed till further orders.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun r ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS contentions raised in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of .
CPC is that there was no cause of action available to the present respondent No. 1/plaintiff for filing the suit against the present petitioner/defendant. The same had been raised keeping in view Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023. Relevant extract, whereof, has been reproduced hereinabove (supra).
Prima-facie from a reading of Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the MOU, it is evident that the agreement so entered into pertain to Single Axle Vehicles and Multi Axle Vehicle. However, so far as Multi Axle Vehicles are concerned, the same were limited to vehicles having 6 tyres and 12 tyres only.
It is a settled proposition of law that once a person becomes a member of a Cooperative Society, he looses his individuality qua the Society and he has no independent right except those given to him by the statute or bye laws. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment titled Daman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors AIR 1985 Supreme Court 973.
Invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court at the behest of the respondent No. 1/plaintiff before the trial Court in his individual capacity specially when the Cooperative Society i.e. proforma respondent No. 2 has entered into an MOU with the petitioner for the benefit of his member prima facie appears to be impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Daman Singh's case stated (supra). Besides the aforesaid invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for permitting 16 tyres vehicles which are to be engaged by the petitioners/defendant No. 1 prima facie cannot be made out from the MOU dated 21.02.2023. Hence, prima facie based on MOU dated 21.02.2023 their exists no enforceable cause of action against the present petitioner/defendant No. 1 in the suit.
In view of the aforesaid, it is evident that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant/petitioner. Grave ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS as per requirement and demand of the company .
for transportation of the Company's material, as per requirements of the Company, and shall not insist to deploy vehicles contrary to the requirements/demands of the Company".
Respondent No. 1/plaintiff have filed a suit before the learned trial Court seeking the following reliefs:-
. "(i) Pass a decree for declaration to the effect that the orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by defendant No. 1-Company to deny the work to 16 tyres vehicles owned by the plaintiff be declared as illegal, wrong, null, void and non- est;
(ii) Pass a decree for mandatory injunction, thereby directing defendant No.1-Company to lift the check on 16 tyres vehicles of the plaintiff and further to provide transportation work to his vehicle bearing number HP11C-0126 on the rates as agreed vide Memorandum of understanding dated 21.02.2023 entered between defendant No. 1-Company and the proforma-defendant and other Transport Cooperative Societies till the revision rates;
(iii) Pass a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant No. 1-Company restraining it from implementing orders/instructions dated 05.05.2024 issued by it.
The paragraph w.r.t cause of action in the suit filed reads as follows:-
"That the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff on 11.05.2024 when defendant No. 1- Company has put a check/ban on the vehicle of the plaintiff to lift the material from its premises and it has been stopped to provide the job card/loading advice for transportation work and the same is continuing one since no job card/loading advice is being issued to him till date."
In the aforesaid backdrop, present petitioner/defendant No. 1 had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint. One of the ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS M/s Ambuja Cements Limited vs. Sunita Sharma & another .
CMPMO No.339 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Kulwant Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
CMPMO No.339 of 2024On taking steps within two days, dasti notice for the service of respondents be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioner by 29.06.2024. The notice be returnable for 10.07.2024.
List on 10.07.2024.
CMP No. 9618 of 2024Notice in the aforesaid terms.
The present petitioner is a defendant in the suit filed by respondent No. 1. The present petitioner/defendant in the suit had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.02.2023 with respondent No. 2/proforma defendant in the suit. The same is appended along with the present petition and appended with the plaint filed before the trial Court. The said Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the present petitioner and proforma defendant in the suit had also been entered into with other Cooperative Societies. It would be relevant to reproduce Clause 1 and Clause 14 of the Memorandum of Understanding. The same read as under:-
"1. The base rate for Single Axle Vehicles (SAV) is Rs. 10.30 PTPK and for Multi Axle Vehicles (MAV) shall be Rs. 9.30 PTPK (i.e. 9.70% discount on the base rate of SAV).
14. The transport cooperative societies shall deploy suitable vehicles (6 wheelers/12 wheelers) ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISJoginder Singh & Anr. vs. Ram Chand Thakur .
RSA No.404 of 201927.06.2024 Present: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for the applicants/appellants.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, for the non- applicant/respondent.
CMP(M) No. 247, 515 and 516 of 2024 Learned counsel for the non-applicant-respondent prays for and is granted one week time to file reply.
In the meanwhile, rejoinder, if any, be also filed within a period of one week. List thereafter.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS.
Rajinder Singh vs. HRTC and another CWP No.5195 of 2024 27.06.2024 Present: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for the respondents.
Notice. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file reply.
Reply be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISBanita Devi vs. State of H.P. and others .
CWP No.5448 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Notice. Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4. On taking steps within three days, issue notice to respondent No.5, returnable within four weeks.
Reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 be filed in the meanwhile.
List after four weeks.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS Inder Singh vs. H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Limited .
CWP No.5450 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, Advocate, for the respondent.
Notice. Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent and seeks time to file reply.
Reply be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISVidya Devi vs. HRTC and others .
CWP No.5452 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate, for the respondents.
Notice. Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file reply. Be filed within a period of four weeks.
List after four weeks.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISParkash Singh vs. State of H.P. and others .
CWP No.5544 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State.
Notice. Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file reply. Be filed within a period of four weeks.
List after four weeks.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISParveen Kumar vs. Shamma Mahajan and another .
RSA No.162 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Veer Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
On taking steps within three days, issue notice to the respondents, returnable within four weeks.
Issue notice on substantial questions of law Nos. 2, 3 and 4, as formulated at Page Nos. 10 & 11 of the appeal.
CMP No. 9980 of 2024Respondents are restrained from disposing off or creating any charge on the Vehicle No. HP-01C-0881, during the pendency of the appeal. The application stands disposed of.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISPrerna Gupta vs. State of H.P. and another .
CWP No.5798 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State.
Notice. Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file reply. Be filed within a period of four weeks.
List after four weeks.
CMP No. 9808 of 2024Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is under instructions not to press this application, at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed.
Application stands disposed of.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS Atul Chaudhary vs. State of H.P. and another .
CWP No.5822 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Munish Datwalia and Mr. Ram Kumar, Advocates, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State.
Notice. Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file reply. Be filed within a period of four weeks.
List after four weeks.
CMP No. 9828 of 2024Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is under instructions not to press this application, at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed.
Application stands disposed of.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISKamla Sharma vs. HRTC and others .
CWP No.5870 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for the respondents.
Notice. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file reply.
Reply be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.
CMP No. 9924 of 2024Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is under instructions not to press this application, at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed.
Application stands disposed of.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISPuran Chand vs. HRTC and others .
CWP No.5872 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for the respondents.
Notice. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file reply.
Reply be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.
CMP No. 9925 of 2024Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is under instructions not to press this application, at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed.
Application stands disposed of.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISHoshiar Singh vs. HRTC and others .
CWP No.5868 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for the respondents.
Notice. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file reply.
Reply be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.
CMP No. 9922 of 2024Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is under instructions not to press this application, at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed.
Application stands disposed of.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISPuran Chand vs. HRTC and others .
CWP No.5872 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for the respondents.
Notice. Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file reply.
Reply be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.
CMP No. 9925 of 2024Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is under instructions not to press this application, at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed.
Application stands disposed of.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISPartap Chand vs. HRTC and others .
CWP No.5882 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Arun Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms, Shrutika Advocate, vice Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate, for the respondents.
Notice. Ms. Shrutika, Advocate, vice Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file reply.
Reply be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.
CMP No. 9946 of 2024Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is under instructions not to press this application, at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed.
Application stands disposed of.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISSuresh Chand vs. HRTC and others .
CWP No.5892 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinod K. Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents.
Notice. Mr. Vinod K. Gupta, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file reply.
Reply be filed within four weeks. List thereafter.
CMP No. 9962 of 2024Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is under instructions not to press this application, at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed.
Application stands disposed of.
CMP No. 9963 of 2024The application is disposed of with a direction to the application-petitioner to file English Translation of Annexures in issue within a period of four weeks.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISDr. Yashwant Kumar & Ors. vs. H.P. University .
CWP No.5894 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.
List on 1st July, 2024.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISPankaj Tanwar vs. State of H.P. .
Cr.MP(M) No.1356 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Mridul Thakur, Advocate and Ms. Prajwal, Advocates, for the petitioner.
Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent.
Notice. Mr. B.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent and seeks time to file status report.
Be filed within a period of three weeks.
List on 19th July, 2024.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISRajinder Kumar and Anr. vs. Amar Singh and Ors.
.
RFA No.166 of 201427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.3 is stated to have died.
Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.4/State.
At the request of leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, list after three weeks.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISBrij Bhushan vs. Rajiv Gupta .
Civil Revision No.66 of 201827.06.2024 Present: Mr. Ashok Sood, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Pooja Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Rinki Kashmiri, Advocate, for the respondent.
At the request of leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, list after two weeks.
r (Bipin C. Negi)
Judge
June 27, 2024
tarun
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS
.
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS
.
Joginder Singh & Anr. vs. Ram Chand Thakur RSA No.404 of 2019 27.06.2024 Present: Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for the applicants/appellants.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, for the non- applicant/respondent.
CMP(M) No. 247, 515 and 516 of 2024 Learned counsel for the non-applicant-respondent prays for and is granted one week time to file reply.
Subsequent thereto, rejoinder, if any, be also filed within a period of one week. List thereafter.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISChander Bhushan and another vs. State of H.P. and othes .
CWP No.5910 of 202427.06.2024 Present: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2/State.
Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
CMP NO. 9983 of 2024 From a perusal of annexure P-5 appended alongwith the petition dated 22.05.2024, it is evident that respondent No.3 had issued a letter to respondent No.1 on 22.05.2024.
In the said letter, DPC for consideration of eligible Manager (DIC Class-II-gazetted) for promotion to the post of General Managers DIC/Deputy Director of Industries Class-I Gazetted, had been fixed for 28.05.2024.
Admittedly, in the case at hand, the present applicants were to be considered for further promotion to the post of General Manager (DIC/Deputy Director of Industries, Class-I Gazetted, Group-A). The meeting was not convened on the said date.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the non applicant seeks time to ascertain the next date fixed for holding of the DPC with respect to promotion of eligible managers to the post of General Manager (DIC/Deputy Director of Industries).
The application stands disposed of.
CWP No.5910 of 2024Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file reply.
List after three weeks.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISGeeta Devi and others vs. Gopi & others .
RSA No.638 of 201527.06.2024 Present: Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for the appellants.
Ms. Kusum Lata, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
None for respondents No.1(a) to 1(e) and 1(g) to 1(i).
CMP No. 9501 of 2018By virtue of the said application, the factum of death of respondent No.2 has been brought on record. The application stands disposed of.
RSA No. 638 of 2015. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants seeks four weeks' time to bring on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.2. Prayer allowed as not opposed.
List after four weeks.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS .
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISIn so far as legal heirs 3(e) and 3(f) i.e. Jagdish .
Chand and Raj Mal are concerned, they already exist on record as respondents No. 1 and 2.
In view thereof, legal heirs of deceased respondent No.3 i.e. 3(a) to 3(d) are ordered to be brought on record.
Amended memo filed alongwith the application is placed on record.
The application stands disposed of.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS Mehar Singh and others vs. Jagdish Chand & others .
RSA No.106 of 201927.06.2024 Present: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Anita Parmar, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Jai Ram Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents except deceased respondent No.3.
CMP(M) No. 1415 of 2023.
Reply to the application has been filed on behalf of proposed legal heirs of deceased respondent No.3 i.e. 3(b) to 3(d). However, proposed legal heirs No. 3(a) is though served, but none has put in appearance on her behalf.
From the sufficient cause shown in the application, it is evident that there exits no inaction on the part of the the applicants-appellants for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.3. Delay in bringing on record the legal heirs is condoned. Abatement, if any, is set aside. The application stands disposed of.
CMP(M) No. 1414 of 2023. From a perusal of the application, it is evident that respondent No.3 had expired on 24.06.2022. In this respect, the death certificate is appended alongwith the application as Annexure A-I. Since the right to sue inheres with the legal heirs of deceased respondent No.3, details whereof have been given in para 3 of the application, the same is allowed. Legal heirs of deceased respondent No.3 are ordered to be brought on record as respondents No. 3(a) to 3(d).
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS.
::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CISGoverdhan Singh vs. Ramesh Dutt and others .
C.R. No. 141 of 201727.06.2024 Present: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the respondents.
CMP No. 6788 of 2023Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner in the case at hand has died.
Faced with the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks four weeks' time to have instructions in this regard and take consequential steps, in case petitioner has died.
List after four weeks.
(Bipin C. Negi) Judge June 27, 2024 tarun ::: Downloaded on - 28/06/2024 20:35:12 :::CIS