Delhi District Court
S.K.Maggu vs National Agricultural Cooperative on 7 August, 2020
(Gy THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN, LD. ADJ-07, SygTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI CS no: 10141/16 S.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative (HEARING WAS DONE THROUGH CISCO WEBEX) 07.08.2020 ORDER IN THE APPLICATION U CPC RIW SECTION 151 CPC NDER ORDER 12 RULE 6 MOVED BY PLAINTIFF 1.
Vide this order, | shall dispose of an application under Order 12 Rule 6 r/w section 1451 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 and the amount due under the Life Insurance Corporation Group Insurance Scheme, 2000. It was argued that the defendant, though admitted having S.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative Lv * Scanned with CamScanner thheld the retiral dues of the plaintiff, however, it did * sot mention the amount being due to the plaintiff under various heads, in the written statement 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 02.08.2018 and the documents and answer to 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 31.03.2014. |
3. It was further argued that defendant had admitted an amount of Rs.7,22,551/- being due to the plaintiff in lieu of earned leave and an amount of Rs.5,95,788/- being due to the plaintiff in lieu of medical leave and further admitted an amount of Rs.63,450/- being due to the plaintiff, the Life Insurance Companies Group S.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative dU Scanned with CamScanner u rance Scheme, 2000 (totalling of ¢.13,81,789/-), hawever, the reason for withholding the said amount has been averred by the defendant to be the pendency of the criminal proceedings ory.
Ld counsel for plaintiff has argued that there are no dings pending against the plaintiff. The criminal procee endant is reference to criminal proceedings by the def only qua M/s Disha Impex Pvt Ltd and M/s Swarup Group of Industries 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.
S.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative Vy Scanned with CamScanner of the was further argued that On perusal ~ charaesheevclasure report, protest petwvan 3 nd order dated CG.10.2017 passed by ACMM, Bangalore City, is apparent that there ae absolutely no allegations against the present plaintiff and the only allegation of she defendant in that case Is against M/s Disha Impex pyt Lid and M/s Swarup Group of industries regarding siphoning of iran ore by the company.
it was further argued that the defendant had issued a sow cause notice dated 27/28.08.2012 to which a a GO, Ss} reply dated 28.01.2013 was given by plaintiff, but no proceedings had been initiated by the defendant on the same against the plaintiff either during his tenure or even after that. In any event, it is well settled law 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, ..
SKA «.Maggu Vs National Agricuttural Cooperative \ ' Scannet d with CamScanner re | ion twas further argued that there is no rule or requiat which even authorize the defendant to initiate or even nue ar roceedings anqui against an continue any proceedings of enquiry ag ; . / "ag no employee who had since retired. Hence, there being power vested with the defendant either to initiate or continue enquiry or withhold the payment of retiral dues 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 illegal 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
3.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative \/ 5 Scanned with CamScanner up Gaoperd tive institutional Service Board MANU/SCIOB 32/2014.
was further argued that review application fled by ihe defendant before the Appellate Authority under the Mult State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, has been dismissed vide order dated 05.10.2018 and therefore, the order dated LO4.2014 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.
11. it 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 &.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative WV ° Scannet d with CamScanner YE : X "
So reference of disputes to arbitration only when the touch the constitution disputes are such which ss of multi state cooperative management of busine saciety. However, the present case is by an employee rative society claiming its n 84 against the multi state coope pute is not covered by Sectio ttled that retiral dues, which dis of the said Act. In this regard, the law is well se the word "Business" used in the act is equated with actual trading or commerce Of other business activity of the multi 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.
S.KMa i j vaggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative WV Scanned with CamScanner #43; 7 + was further argued that similarly, the issue of maintainability of present suit, as raised by defendant, to the Central Registrar in terms of without giving notice ative Societies Section 115 of the Multi State Co-oper 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 of business of the society, which is not so in the present case.
3. 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 S.K, Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative " \V/ ® Scannet d with CamScanner
10. udershan Suri, MANU/DE/1273/2010, Madan Lal vs Shree Yog Mayaji Temple, Kaushik MANU/DE/1237/2011.
Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had submitted that plaintiff oy . ead wishes to restrict his claim in the suit to the claim raise by plaintiff in this application and suit be decreed with interest and cost. In this regard, an email was sent by the counsel for plaintiff.
No reply to the said application was fled by the defendant, however after the arguments were heard through CISCO Webex from both sides, written submissions were filed by both the parties. Ld. counsel for defendant on the other hand had argued 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 plaintiff was exonerated in five cases but S.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative §U 9 Scanned with CamScanner breach of trust.
responsible in two cases for e has argued that on the basis of the inquiry report, ' CAN 3 BLE th serative Socie red ihe Central Registrar of Co -aperative Society orde
- a i e the recovery for a sum of Rs.2,12,28,700/-against th { a S plaintiff on 27.10.2011 against which an appeal wa 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.
17. Ld. counsel had further argued 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.
18. Ld. counsel had further argued that the police complaint was filed by the defendant which resulted in registration x of FIR with Karnataka Police. The closure report was S.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative WV Scannet d with CamScanner e iti e red.
ismi ver, the rhe protest petition was dismissed howe eV | sions court, petition is pending disposal before the Ses intiff is not Bangalore. It has further argued that plaintiff intiff. are entitled to the amount as claimed by the plaint hat rightly withheld. Ld counsel has further argued t . . nd there are no admissions in the written statement a LOO LD OOP Ay CPE.
application is liable to be dismissed.
19. Ld. counsel for the defendant further argued that as per section 84 of the said Act, disputes touching the constitution, management or 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 regulating appointment pay scale, paying the allowances and other condition of services including S.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative Scanned with CamScanner action to be taken against the employee of disciplinary * ulti State Co-operative Society. Ld. counsel has farther 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.
Ld. counsel further argued that statutory notice is to be given under section 115 of the said Act which was also not given and therefore, 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. Ltd & 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 S.K.Maggu Vs Nati | onal Agricultural Cooperative / "
Scanned with CamScanner quirement of seeking instructions with respect [0 ore er, He has further arqued that ihe authenticity of that ord e has arder was of year 2018 and now it is year 2020. H further argued that arguments of the Ld counsel for the defendant are completely baseless and therefore, the application be allowed.
| have heard the arguments and have perused the record carefully.
Certain admitted facts are as under:-
a. The date of appointment and terms of the appointment of the plaintiff is not disputed. b. The date of the superannuation of the plaintiff is not 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 medical leaves, earned leaves and roup i :
group Insurance scheme has been given. Therefore. it IS not | | in doubt that the amount towards the medical Scanned with CamScanner LP My | eme has : saves and group insurance sch aves, earned leaves and grou heen withheld by the defendant.
fame said the defendant has taken a defence that the amount has been withheld due to pendency of the criminal proceedings.
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, medical leaves and group insurance 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 mentioned in the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC alongwith interest, 27, 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 b . .
y the Central Registrar against the plaintiff herein in SK . ;
Maggu Vs National Agricutturat Cooperative We bo v 14 Scannet d with CamScanner me year 2014, however, that order was challenged the Appellate Authority and the said recovery e record further * before order was quashed. The perusal of th reveals that the said order of quashing of the recovery he defendant order was on technical grounds however, t did not initiate any proceeding against the plaintiff Y a x during his tenure of service with respect to the said alleged misconduct.
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 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 plaintitt 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 th € same. Since the order dated 05.10.2018 has been .
5.K.Maggu Vs Nati ational Agricultural Cooperative (/ i5 Scannet d with CamScanner KM UEESE re . { } re of { ye ac is ! Q 2 Ee = { Vv eC oO } mek oF y § » 2g -- ye quences if the same ent cannot be accepted.
ntiff was this conse therefore, this argum One limb o recovery order. Another one is as dated 27/28.08.2012 given by defendant to plaintiff.
tn fact, the show cause notice dated 97/28.08.2012 was issued to the plaintiff to which plaintiff duly sent a reply dated 28.01.2013 but no action was taken since thereafter. Now it cannot be said that the show cause notice is still effective. Its been more than 6 years that - plaintiff has retired. :
The reference of criminal proceedings in the written statement of the defendant is with respect to an FIR which was stated to be registered against Mis Disha Impex and M/s Swarup Group of Industries, though, the lainti Plaintiff was not named therein. In my humble opinion y J Scannet d with CamScanner UGE we e aintiff would have been found to b if the pl se, he would been any such criminal ca at could have been an Se _ : involved in faced them, but in na manner th impediment in enjoyment of retiral benefits by an iscipli inquiry oF employee/plaintiff, as no disciplinary Inq y proceedings were ever initiated against him. The careful perusal of the FIR of the chargesheet does not show any allegations levelled by defendant against the plaintiff.
32. 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 t iti he 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 y WV Scannet d with CamScanner YY he ground for withholding the revision petition can be t i fp + against the plaintiff in the protest petition.
iti iS Perusal of the entire protest petition shows that there 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 are being investigated as well"
34. 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 intift j :
Of plaintiff in the crime. Therefore, ' ational Agricultural Cooperati erative / 1 Scannet d with CamScanner SC Maggu Vs .e pendency of the review petition against the order of © jismissal 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.
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.
36. 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 | oe here is no such finding in the present case by any S.K.Maggu Vs Nati ational Agricultural Cooperative V 19 Scannet d with CamScanner npetent authority except an accusation which was Pmade 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.
38. 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,
39. Section 49 (2) (e) is with respect to the powers and functions of the Board to make provisions for regulating SK, i i K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative VV Scannet d with CamScanner 20 OHA ELE je appointment of employees of the multi state
-ooperative 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, os allowances and other conditions .of service of oS 21 S.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative WV Scanned with CamScanner Al, cluding disciplinary action against such employees;
XXXXX Section 49 with respect to the powers and functions of the Board wherein the section 84 is 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 S.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative \/ "
Scanned with CamScanner Jaiming 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 multi 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' . ' 23 S.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative / Scannet d with CamScanner S.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative tate cooperation society and the Jiquidator of nother multi state cooperative society.
2. for the purposes of sub section (1) , the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or business of a multi-state cooperative society, namely-
(a) a claim by the multi state cooperative society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not,
(b) a claim by a surely against the principal debtor where the multi state cooperative society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not,
(c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of a multi-state Scanned with CamScanner Kod x cooperative society.
"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 a, os ' oy Cooperative Societies Act which is akin to the section S.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative V 8 Scanned with CamScanner ' of Multi State Co-aperative Saciety Act has heen discussed therein and similarly section 79 of the puniah Cooperative Seciety Act which Is similar to section Lif of the Muli 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.
93, 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 fhe 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 ms,
3.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Couperative VV ° Scannet d with CamScanner maintainable before this court.
Even otherwise for the sake of presuming it fell under section 84, necessary consequence of which was that it had to be referred to the arbitrator. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 clearly provides that plea of the arbitration can only be taken before submitting the first 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 is not available to the defendant by any chance whatsoever.
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.
46. In Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. Ltd VS Union Bank of India & Ors (2000) 7 SCC 120, a contention was raised on S.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative WV "7 Scanned with CamScanner : ehalf of the Appellant, Uttam Singh Dugal that "admissions under Order Xl 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 otherwise" 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 Xll Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment.
47. Further in Madan Lal Kaushik (Supra) as relied upon by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, Hon'ble High Court of Dethi has observed :
"The ambit and scope of Order XI! 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 S.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative VV "e Scanned with CamScanner catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and of various High Courts, the only pre-requisite is that there must be admissions of fact arising in the suit, either 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 ar express and even constructive admissions have been deemed sufficient to pronounce judgment thereon. Furthermore, such admissions, it is well settled, may be culled out fram 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 SAMaggu Vs National Agnculural Cooperative / Scannet d with CamScanner 29 respect of the whole or a part of the claim made in the suit, after ascertaining whether the defence set up is such that it requires evidence for the determination of the issues or whether the defence is an irreconcilable one, rendenng it well high impossible for the defendant to fot lop 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 stioulation that the objections raised by the opposite party against rendering the judgment SS, 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".
48, The admission are very clear in the written statement ™ S.K.Maggu Vs National Agricultural Cooperative \/ %0 Scannet d with CamScanner nd 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 Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, An amount of Rs.13,81,789/- due to plaintiff being has been illegally withheld by the defendant. The application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC is allowed. A decree for a sum of Rs.13,81,789 /- 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.
50. Ordered accordingly.
51. Decreesheet be prepared. No order as to cost.
52. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED THROUGH CISCO WEBEX VANDANA JAIN) ADJ-07/SEISAKET COURTS! NEW DELHI/07.08.2020 Scanned with CamScanner