Delhi High Court
Paramount Publicity (P) Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 15 December, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995IAD(DELHI)91, 57(1995)DLT183, 1995(32)DRJ185, 1996 A I H C 541, (1995) 32 DRJ 185 (1995) 57 DLT 183, (1995) 57 DLT 183
Author: Dalveer Bhandari
Bench: Dalveer Bhandari
JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J.
(1) The plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction with the following prayer: "TO pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant company by itself, its officers, employees, servants/agents or any other person whomsoever, from removing, defacing, damaging and/or interfering in any manner whatsoever, with the plaintiff's hoardings as detailed in Schedule-'A' to the plaint;"
(2) In annexure 'A' the location and the site has been indicated as on the round about of the crossing at Punchkuin Road and Link Road (8 Hoarding Sites).
(3) This court issued summons to the defendants and in the interlocutory application, passed an ex parte injunction restraining the defendants from removing, defacing, damaging or interferring in any manner with the plaintiff's advertisements/hoardings on the round about of the crossing at Panchkuin Road and Link Road.
(4) The defendant M.C.D. in the written statement had taken preliminary objection that plaintiff is guilty of deliberately supressing material facts from this Court and on the basis of supression and concealment offacts, the ex parte injunction granted by this Court is liable to be vacated.
(5) It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the M.C.D. that the plaintiff had filed a suit No. 392/1985 titled as 'Pawan Kumar Chopra Vs. M.C.D.' with identical relief in the District Court, Delhi. The present suit has been filed in this Court in the name of Paramount Publicity Limited, a private company through its Managing Director Mr. Pawan Chopra.
(6) The prayer in the suit filed in the Trial Court is reproduced as under : "IT is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants, its officials, agents and employees from dispossessing the plaintiff from the sites mentioned in Annexure 'A' and from removing, defacing or defacing the advertisements, hoardings/Neo- sings etc. displayed on the sites as per Annexure 'A' or in any way harassing the plaintiff for the display of advertisements/hoardings as per Annexure'A'.
(7) Annexure 'A' which has been mentioned there also includes Sati Mandir Panchkuin Road round about 10 sites of 20' X 10'. No relief was granted in this suit in the Trial Court and dismissed in default. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit with identical prayer in this Court.
(8) It is submitted by learned counsel for the defendant Mcd that this fact of filing the suit by the same party before the Trial Court for identical relief has been deliberately suppressed from this Hon'ble Court.
(9) Ms. Madhu Tewatia, learned counsel for the Mcd further submitted that after the grant of ex parte injunction, the plaintiff did not even-bother to pay the usual charges to the defendant on account of advertisement, ground rent, tax, etc. and ultimately because of the conduct of the plaintiff he was blacklisted by the M.C.D. Even this fact has been concealed from this Court. Ms. Tewatia, learned counsel for the Mcd submitted that the Courts have always deprivated the practice of supression and conceal- ment of material facts from the Court.
(10) In . "Udai Chand Vs. Shankar Lal & Others", the Supreme Court revoked the special leave granted by the Supreme Court and rejected the special leave petition and vacated the stay order. The Supreme Court relied on his earlier judgment "Hari Narain Vs Badri Das" , their Lordships of Supreme Court observed as under: "IN dealing with applications for special leave the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading."
In that case, the Court revoked the grant of special leave despite the fact that Mr. Setalvad, who had argued the special leave petition at the time of its grant, had stated that, so far as he recollected, the special leave was not granted on the ground on which misrepresentation by his client had taken place.
(11) In Air 1951 Allahabad, 749 Full Bench, the court refused to grant any relief due to mis representation or supression of material facts.
(12) It is also submitted that hoardings have been erected by the plaintiff without prior permission of the Mcd and have been displayed in clear contravention with the provisions of the Dmc Act and the bye laws made there under. Display of these hoardings also violate policy of the Mcd as no hoardings are permitted on the round abouts.
(13) The learned counsel has placed reliance on the observation of the Division Bench of this Court in Cw 3762 of 1993 titled as 'Lahori Mal etc. Vs N.D.M.C/ on 15.10.1993. The relevant observations are reproduced as under: "FOR those persons who want to set up advertisements/hoardings in future, they will have to comply with the provisions of bye-laws No.3 of the 1993 bye laws and prior permission will have to be obtained before any hoarding/advertisement is set up. If any hoarding is erected without obtaining the necessary permission, the Ndmc will be at liberty, and indeed would be duty bound, to demolish the same and no Civil Court shall grant any injunction temporary or otherwise, unless and until it is satisfied on the basis of documentary evidence that the requisite prior permission for erecting the advertisements/hoardings had been obtained. We are informed that large number of Civil Suits have been filed and injunctions obtained restraining the respondents from removing the advertisements even though no permission has been obtained. The Ndmc shall within two months from today apply to all those courts who have granted injunctions where no permission has been obtained and no such applications being filed, those courts shall finally dispose of the said applications for vacation of injunction order within a period of three months of the receipt of the application."
(14) Ms. Tewatia, learned counsel also submitted that even apart from supression and concealment-of material facts, the plaintiff has no case either in equity or in law because now the Mcd is not granting permission for display of hoardings and advertisements and she has given following statement in Court: "AS per the internal policy of the Department, it has been decided with the approval of the Commissioner and the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Delhi that no hoardings/advertisements would be allowed to be displayed on the round-about in the city of Delhi w.e.f. March, 1994 in the interest of public and in view of the hazards involved on the streets. In a number of cases wherein the sites had been allotted on the round-about, they have been cancelled by the M.C.D. and the amounts have been refunded and/or are being refunded."
(15) The learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff has obtained ex parte injunction from this Court by concealing and supressing the material facts and injunction order is liable to be vacated.
(16) I have heard Mr. Maniktala, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Ms. Tewatia, learned counsel for the Mcd and considered all the documents filed by the learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff is clearly guilty of concealment and supression of the material facts of filing the suit before the trial court for identical relief.
(17) The plaintiff is also guilty of supressing the fact that he was black listed by the Mcd for non payment of advertisement and hoarding charges.
(18) The plaintiff is also guilty of withholding this information from the Court that hoardings have been erected without permission of the MCD.
(19) In any event now the Mcd is not permitting display of hoardings and advertisement in Delhi, therefore, this order has to be vacated.
(20) The condition of road traffic in Delhi is indeed in bad shape because of unusually large number of vehicles on Delhi roads. Apart from this large hoardings and advertisements certainly disturb the concentration and attention of the drivers of the vehicles. The MCD's decision not to permit any display of hoardings and advertisement on road can be termed as either arbitrary or unreasonable. This decision has been taken in the public interest.
(21) Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, injunction granted by this Court on 3.3.1994 is liable to be vacated.
(22) Let the suit be listed for admission/denial of documents on 6th January, 1995 before the Deputy Registrar.