Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mehta Bajri Company vs . State Of H.P. And Others & on 14 October, 2022
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
Mehta Bajri Company vs. State of H.P. and others & .
connected matters.
Civil Suit Nos. 69 of 2016 a/w Civil Suit No. 86 of 2016 & Civil Suit No. 6 of 2017.
Civil Suit Nos. 69 & 86 of 2016 14.10.2022 Present: Mr. Naresh Kumar Verma, Advocate, for the plaintiff(s).
Mr. Hemant Vaid, Additional Advocate General, for r the defendants-State.
Civil Suit No. 6 of 2017 Mr. Chandernarayan Singh, Advocate, for the plaintiff(s).
Mr. Hemant Vaid, Additional Advocate General, for the defendants-State OMP No. 393 of 2019 in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2016 This application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking directions for refund of amount of Rs. 37,55,675/-
alongwith interest thereupon, which was deposited by the plaintiff in the Registry of this Court in furtherance to interim order passed by this Court at the time of passing interim stay in favour of the plaintiff.
It has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that now for furnishing solvent security by plaintiff equivalent to the amount claimed by the defendant from the plaintiff, amount deposited in the Registry of this Court deserves to be released in favour of the plaintiff.
::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2022 20:02:19 :::CISIn response to this application, filed on behalf of .
defendants through defendant No.3, especially in para-5 of the reply plea of the plaintiff has been admitted to the extent that interest of defendants-department has been secured by the plaintiff by execution of mortgage deed (Annexure A-2) in favour of defendants-department, having value more than the penalty amount imposed upon the plaintiff. Therefore, it has been further stated that defendants-department has no objection, if the amount, deposited by the plaintiff as conveyed to department by defendant vide letter dated 22.08.2017, is released/refunded by the Court.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, amount deposited by the plaintiff in the Registry of this Court is directed to be released in favour of plaintiff alongwith up-to-date interest if any accrued therein, by remitting the same in its bank account details whereof shall be supplied by the plaintiffs.
Application stands disposed of.
OMP No. 364 of 2021 in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2016 This application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking direction to the defendants to recalculate electricity charges after deducting 10% of electricity consumption towards domestic use.
In response to this application, it has been stated that application dated 27.04.2021 submitted by the plaintiff on the same issue, to the defendant, has been duly considered ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2022 20:02:19 :::CIS and after reducing 10% of electricity unit from total .
consumption by the applicant, a Revised Notice bearing No. Udyog(Bhu) NPR-CWP No. 2632/2009-957, dated 13.09.2022 for the amount of Rs.3,07,28,250/- stands served upon the applicant plaintiff instead of earlier penalty of Rs.3,41,42,500/-.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that this application has become infructuous.
Accordingly the application stands disposed of as having become infructuous.
OMP(M) Nos.52 & 63 of 2021 in Civil Suit No. 86of 2016 These applications have been filed for substitution of deceased plaintiff No.2 Rakesh Mahajan. Photocopy of death certificate of deceased plaintiff has been placed on record.
Despite granting various opportunities, no reply has been filed to these application.
It has been submitted in OMP(M) No. 52 of 2021 that estate of deceased plaintiff has devolved upon his son Gaurav Mahajan, as detailed in para-3 of OMP No. 52 of 2021. There is no other legal heirs or representatives of the deceased plaintiff.
At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General has pointed out that Rakesh Mahajan plaintiff No.2 was arrayed as plaintiff in the capacity of member of plaintiff No.1 ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2022 20:02:19 :::CIS M/S SL Udyog Association and his son despite being his only .
legal heir may not be entitled for substitution in place of deceased Rakesh Mahajan, unless he becomes member of plaintiff No.1-Association. Further that in para-2 of the plaint only two members of plaintiff- Association have been disclosed. After death of Rakesh Mahajan, unless his son or legal representatives/legal heirs are inducted as member(s) of the plaintiff concern. Deceased Rakesh Mahajan would not be substituted by his legal heirs/son as plaintiff No.2.
In view of above objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate General, plaintiff No.1 as well as applicant Gaurav Mahajan are directed to place material on record to establish entitlement of Gaurav Mahajan to substitute deceased plaintiff Rakesh Mahajan.
List for consideration on next date alongwith main suit.
Civil Suit Nos. 69 of 2016 and 86 of 2016 and Civil Suit No. 6 of 2017 List for framing of issues alongwith other consolidated Civil Suits after two weeks.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
14th October, 2022 (subhash) ::: Downloaded on - 17/10/2022 20:02:19 :::CIS