Delhi High Court
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Parveen Kapoor on 31 January, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001VIAD(DELHI)717, 90(2001)DLT517
Author: S.K. Mahajan
Bench: S.K. Mahajan
JUDGMENT C.M. 2979/2000: S.K. Mahajan, J.
1. On 13th September, 2000, the Counsel for the petitioner sought time to verify the fact whether vigilance enquiry has been completed or not and whether the documents relating to Vigilance have been filed in Court or not. On this request being made, the Court adjourned the case for 31st January, 2001 subject t payment of costs of Rs. 2,500/-.
2. This application has now been filed for modification of the order on the ground that the complaints by the public to the Vigilance Department were enquired into and the concerned officers were charge-sheeted and suspended. It is further stated that the evidence is being recorded before the Vigilance Department and findings of the Central Vigilance Commission would be filed in due course and appropriate action will be taken. It is, therefore, stated that this Court was misled by the petitioner and the cost of Rs. 2,500/- was, therefore, imposed. It is submitted that the petitioner being a public Corporation, it may be exempted from paying costs.
3. For the reasons stated in the application the order dated 13th September, 2000 is modified and the amount of cost reduced to Rs. 1,500/-. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the cost will be paid within two weeks. The application stands disposed of.
C.R. 1247/99 & C.M. 327/2000:
1. The matter has been heard with the consent of the parties and is being disposed of finally.
2. Plaintiff had filed suit for recovery of certain amount on the allegation that it had supplied certain material to the petitioner payment of which has not been made inspite of repeated demands made by the respondent. In the written statement, the defense taken by the petitioner was that the goods supplied by the petitioner was spurious and for that the Vigilance enquiry has already been initiated and the matter is pending before the Central Vigilance Commission. On these pleas being taken, the Court on 8th October, 1999 framed the following issue:
(i) What is the effect of M.C.D. pleading no detail i.e. source of complaint, the designation of the authority which declared the goods spurious and the mode and the particulars by the authority which conducted the enquiry and pointed that the disputed goods are spurious?
3. The Court after framing of this issue was of the opinion that no other issue required to be led and on the issue fixed the same for arguments. Being aggrieved by that order, the present petition was filed by the petitioner. In may opinion, since the plea taken by the petitioner is that the goods supplied by the respondent is spurious, it is for the petition to prove by way of evidence that it is not liable to make payment of any amount to the respondent due to the goods supplied by the respondent being spurious. This matter, in my opinion, cannot be decided without evidence. Counsel for the respondent states that he will have no objection of this petition being allowed if the petitioner is restricted to lead his evidence on one hearing as the matter is pending for a long time.
4. After having heard the learned Counsel for the paries, I think since the matter cannot be decided without evidence and the Court has acted in material irregularity by framing this issue and fixing the case for arguments on that issue. I accordingly set aside this order and direct that the issue will be proved by recording of evidence to be produced by the petitioner-MCD. I, however, cleared that the petitioner will not get more than two opportunities for evidence in support of its case. The plaintiff/respondent shall have a right to rebut the evidence which may be produced by the petitioner. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
5. Application and Petition disposed of.