Delhi High Court - Orders
Reserve Bank Of India vs M/S Jvg Finance Ltd on 18 May, 2020
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~3 (company matter)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.As. 254-55/2020 IN CO.PET. 265/1998
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA .... Petitioner
Through: None
Versus
M/S JVG FINANCE LTD. ... Respondent
Through: None
In the matter of:
PAWAN KUMAR JAIN ... Applicant
Through: Mr. Rishabh Jain, Adv. for the
applicant along with Mr.
Dheeraj Gupta, Representative
on behalf of the petitioner
Mr. Kunal Sharma, Adv. for the
Official Liquidator
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 18.05.2020 CA 255/2020 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.
CM 254/2020 in CO.PET. 265/1998
1. This matter has been taken up for hearing by video CA 254/2020 in Co. Pet 265/1998 Page 1 of 10 conferencing, consequent to listing thereof having allowed by the Registrar.
2. The prayer clause, in this application, reads thus:
"That in view of the above-state submissions, and with the lone intention to prevent denial and failure of justice, the applicant most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(a) Direct the Official Liquidator to place on record videos and pictures relating to subject lands and those actually belonging to company in liqn. demonstrating their physical condition, if available as of August 2019, or/and of present date.
(b) Direct the Official Liquidator to place on record a report consisting complete details and list of khasra/lands (with description) where security guards were placed in August 2019 in Village Hasanpur Masoori, Khekra, Baghpat.
(c) Direct the Official Liquidator to place on record seizure memo and/or other documents prepared on site or subsequently relating to subject lands in August 2019.
AND/OR
(d) Pass any other and further orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
3. The applicant claims to be a title holder of lands bearing Khasra nos. 14 and 17, Village Hasanpur Masoori, Tehsil Khekra, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. These lands originally constituted part of the assets of M/s JVG Finance Ltd., which is presently in liquidation and in respect of which an order of winding up has been passed by this Court in 2003.
CA 254/2020 in Co. Pet 265/1998 Page 2 of 105. The applicant claims to be in ownership of the subject lands, over which, according to him, the Official Liquidator placed his board in August, 2019, as a consequence whereof the applicant is disabled from accessing the lands. Even so, it is asserted that no evidence, regarding the physical condition of the subject lands as of August, 2019, is forthcoming, resulting in apprehension, of the applicant, that the status of the lands may change.
6. It is in these circumstances that the afore-extracted prayers have been made in the application.
7. Earlier, CA 198/2020 had been preferred by the present applicant, containing the following prayers:
"(a) Direct the Official Liquidator to ensure protection of the subject lands viz. Khasras 14 and 17, Village Hasanpur Masoori, Tehsil Khekra,Distt Baghpat U.P. and ensure that there is no change in their physical status since the same may illegitimately impact the merits of the co-applications and cause denial of justice.
(b) Direct the Official Liquidator to file an affidavit demonstrating the physical condition of subject lands and lands of company in liqn. as was in August 2019 when the OL. dispossessed the applicant/his tenants, and as it is on date.
OR
(c) Allow the applicant to resume his possession (in terms of the established revenue records) of the subject lands as it was prior to August 2019, and enable him to protect his lands himself while binding him to conditions as deemed fit by this Hon 'ble Court.
OR/AND CA 254/2020 in Co. Pet 265/1998 Page 3 of 10
(d) Pass any other and further orders that this Hon 'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
8. Mr. Rishabh Jain, learned counsel appearing for the applicant candidly acknowledges that prayer (a) of the present application was also one of the prayers in CA 198/2020. However, he submits that the said prayer was not disposed of on merits, and that in the circumstances, the present application would be maintainable. He relies, for the said purpose, on Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar And Others1.
9. The prayer to place on record, the physical condition and status of the lands, over which the applicant claims a right, as urged in the aforesaid CA 198/2020, was rejected, by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 24th April, 2020. Paras 6 and 7 of the said order, which are self-speaking in nature, read thus:
"6. It is seen from the record that certain other applications are pending consideration by the Roster Bench on 09.07.2020. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has however submitted that those applications are not relevant to the disposal of the present application and that while he was not pressing the prayer for repossession of the subject lands the Official Liquidator be directed to file an affidavit on the physical status of the land.
7. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, this Court is of the view that such a prayer cannot be granted at this stage, when there are no specific facts asserted on affidavit by the applicant as to when and by whom was the applicant informed about alleged construction activities on the subject land and the exact nature of such construction activities. Thus, there is no occasion for directing 1 AIR 1964 SC 993 CA 254/2020 in Co. Pet 265/1998 Page 4 of 10 the Official Liquidator to file an affidavit to demonstrate that the physical condition of the subject land as was in existence in August, 2019 continues to be so on date. It rather appears to this Court that the application is in the nature of a fishing expedition, to get something on record, that too on affidavit, which may be useful to the applicant in protecting his interests at a future date. The prayers sought are vague and cannot be allowed in any case."
10. A reading of the afore-extracted para 7 of the order dated 24th April, 2020, reveals that this Court was not inclined to entertain the applicant's prayers as no specific facts had been asserted, on affidavit, by the applicant, relating to the alleged construction activities on the subject lands, their exact nature, or the mannerin which the applicant obtained information thereof. In the circumstances, this Court was of the view that no occasion arose, for directing the Official Liquidator to file any affidavit regarding the physical condition of the subject lands. In fact, according to this Court, the application was in the nature of "a fishing expedition, to get something on record, that too on affidavit, which may be useful to the applicant in protecting his interests at a future date". The prayers, opined this Court, were vague and could not be allowed.
11. In response to a pointed query put to him, Mr. Jain agrees that, in the present application too, there is no assertion of specific facts regarding the alleged construction activities on the subject lands, the exact thereof or the manner in which the applicant obtained knowledge. Even so, he submits that he has a right to protect these lands, in view of the law laid down Arjun Singh1, the present application is maintainable.
CA 254/2020 in Co. Pet 265/1998 Page 5 of 1012. Besides, submits Mr. Jain, payers (b) and (c) in the present application were not subject matter of CA 198/2020.
13. I have heard Mr. Jain at length, and considered the application on its merits.
14. It defies comprehension as to how, in the face of the order, dated 24th April, 2020, and the observations entered, by this Court, in para 7 thereof, the applicant could maintain yet another application, with the very same prayer, without curing the defects/defaults highlighted in para 7 of the said order.
15. Mr. Rishabh Jain places special reliance on para 14 of the judgment in Arjun Singh1, which reads thus:
"14. It is needless to point out that interlocutory orders are of various kinds; some like orders of stay, injunction or receiver are designed to preserve the status quo pending the litigation and to ensure that the parties might not be prejudiced by the normal delay which the proceedings before the court usually take. They do not, in that sense, decide in any manner the merits of the controversy in issue in the suit and do not, of course, put an end to it even in part. Such orders are certainly capable of being altered or varied by subsequent applications for the same relief, though normally only on proof of new facts or new situations which subsequently emerge. As they do not impinge upon the legal rights of parties to the litigation the principle of res judicata does not apply to the findings on which these orders are based, though if applications were made for relief on the same basis after the same has once been dis- posed of the court would be justified in rejecting the same as an abuse of the process, of court. There are other orders which are also interlocutory, but would fall into a different category. The CA 254/2020 in Co. Pet 265/1998 Page 6 of 10 difference from the ones just now referred to lies in the fact that they are not directed to maintaining the status quo or to preserve the property pending the final adjudication, but are designed to ensure the just, smooth, orderly and expeditious disposal of the suit. They are interlocutory in the sense that they do not decide any matter in issue arising in the suit, nor put an end to the litigation. The case of an application under O. IX. r. 7 would be an illustration of this type. If an application made under the provisions of that rule is dismissed and an appeal were filed against the decree in the suit in which such application were made, there can be no doubt that the propriety of the order rejecting the reopening of the proceeding and the refusal to relegate the party to an earlier stage might be canvassed in the appeal and dealt with by the appellate court. In that sense, the refusal of the court to permit the defendant to "set the clock back" does not attain finality. But what we are concerned with is slightly different and that is whether the same Court is finally bound by that order at later stages, so as to preclude its being reconsidered. Even if the rule of resjudicata does not apply it would not follow that on every subsequent day on which the suit stands adjourned for further hearing the petition could be repeated and fresh orders sought on the basis of identical facts. The principle that repeated applications based on the same facts and seeking the same reliefs might be disallowed by the court does not however necessarily rest on the principle of resjudicata. Thus if an application for the adjournment of a suit is rejected, a subsequent application for the same purpose even if based on the same facts, is not barred on the application 'of any rule of res judicata, but would be rejected for the same grounds on which the original application was refused. The principle underlying the distinction between the rule of res judicata and a rejection on the ground that no new facts have been adduced to justify a different order is vital. If the principle of resjudicata is applicable to the decision on a particular issue of fact, even if fresh facts were placed before the Court, the bar would continue to operate and preclude a fresh investigation of the issue, whereas in the other case, on proof of fresh facts, the court would be competent, nay,, would be bound to take those into account and make an order conformably to the facts freshly brought before the court."
17. In my view, reliance on the decision of Arjun Singh1, by the CA 254/2020 in Co. Pet 265/1998 Page 7 of 10 counsel for the applicant, is completely misplaced. There is no question, here, of application of the principle of res judicata. The fact of the matter is that an application containing an identical relief, already stands dismissed, by this Court, on the ground that such prayers could not be urged without, in the first instance, placing specific facts, on affidavit, regarding the alleged construction activities, the exact nature thereof and the manner in which the applicant obtained knowledge. It is completely impermissible, in my view, for the second application, to be preferred, with the same prayers, again suffering from the same defects, i.e., in the absence of any assertion of facts, regarding the alleged construction activities, the exact nature thereof and the manner in which the applicant obtained knowledge. Allowing such an application would amount to allowing the applicant to indulge in forum shopping, which has, from time immemorial, been deprecated.
18. Mr. Rishabh Jain seeks to distinguish the present application from CA 198/2020 on the ground that while, in the said CA 198/2020 he had specifically averred that constructions activities were taking place in the subject lands, and he had apprehension of further activities being taken place, no such averment is contained in the present application, and he is seeking disclosure of information regarding the subject lands, as a general principle. I fail to understand as to how, given the fact that, in the face of specific averments regarding the possibility of construction activities on the subject lands, this Court has declined to entertain the prayers of the applicant, the same prayers can be ventilated by referring to any construction activity, effectively, CA 254/2020 in Co. Pet 265/1998 Page 8 of 10 therefore, urging the prayers in vacuo. This, in fact, would be an additional ground on which the application deserves to be rejected.
19. The manner in which the present application has been filed, in the face of the dismissal, by that Court, of CA 198/2020, buttresses the observation, in the order dated 24th April, 2020 (supra) that the applicant seems to be interested not in preservation of his lands, but in having a fishing inquiry conducted and ensuring placement of material, on affidavit, which could support his interests at a later point of time.
20. In the face of the order dated 24th April, 2020, especially in the light of paras 6 and 7 thereof, therefore, in my view, prayer (a) in the present application is completely misconceived and is, essentially, abusive of the process of law. It cannot, therefore, be granted.
21. In so far as prayers (b) and (c) in the application are concerned, once prayer (a) in the application stands rejected, there is no question of entertaining prayer (b), which seeks placing, on record by the Official Liquidator, a report containing complete details and lists of all khasras/lands where security guards were placed in August, 2019 in Village Hasanpur Masoori, Tehsil Khekra, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. This plea, again, appears to be an attempt, of the applicant, to obtain, with his left hand, what he could not obtain with his right. The applicant's concern is with respect to the subject lands and not with respect to the other lands in Village Hasanpur Masoori, Tehsil Khekra, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. No occasion, therefore, arises to CA 254/2020 in Co. Pet 265/1998 Page 9 of 10 direct the Official Liquidator to file any report containing complete details and lists of all khasras/lands where security guards were placed in August, 2019 in Village Hasanpur Masoori, Tehsil Khekra, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.
22. Prayer (c), in the application, is essentially a follow up to prayer
(a) as it also seeks placing, on record, by the Official Liquidator, seizure memo relating to the subject lands, in August, 2019. In view of rejection of prayer (a), prayer (c) too, does not survive for consideration.
23. In view thereof, this application is dismissed with costs, which are, conservatively, computed, for the present, at ₹ 10,000/-. This amount shall be deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within one month of resumption of physical functioning of the Courts. This amount shall be utilized for COVID relief and welfare measures.
24. A copy of this order will be sent to the Member Secretary, Delhi State Legal Services Authority, C Office, Patiala House Courts Complex, New Delhi-110001.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
MAY 18, 2020 r.bararia CA 254/2020 in Co. Pet 265/1998 Page 10 of 10