Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parivar Diary And Allied Ltd. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2019
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
MP 4209/2019
Parivar Diary and Allied Ltd. vs. State of MP
Gwalior, dtd. 26/08/2019
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvanshi, Government Advocate for the respondent/
State.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 07/06/2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Gwalior in MJC(R) No. 44/2011, by which the objection raised by the petitioner on the claim of fee by Commissioner, has been rejected.
It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 13/09/2011, the Commissioner was appointed for refund of the amount to the depositors and fees of the Commissioner has been fixed at Rs.1,500/- per working day. Accordingly, the Commissioner submitted a bill of Rs.3,30,500/-, which was objected by the petitioner on the ground that the Commissioner was entitled for the fees only for the working day i.e. on the day of which the amount was paid to the depositors, but the Commissioner has claimed the fees even for those days on which no amount was paid to the depositors. Such objection was rejected by the Court below, which is under challenge.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the exorbitant payment of fee to the Commissioner is also not in the interest of the depositors because the fees is being paid out of the amount, which is to be repaid to the depositors. The 2 Commissioner has claimed the fees even for those days on which he had not worked at all.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
This Court by order dated 19/08/2019 had directed the petitioner to file relevant document by which the Commissioner was appointed and his professional fee was fixed. Accordingly, the order dated 13/09/2011 has been placed on record.
It is the submission of the petitioner that since the fees to the Commissioner is being paid out of the amount of the depositors, therefore, the amount of the petitioners should not be exorbitant.
I have gone through the order dated 13/09/2011 by which the Commissioner was appointed.
It is specifically mentioned in the order as under:-
^^dfe'uj dh Qhl dk Hkqxrku vukosnd daiuh }kjk ogu djuk gksxkA^^ Thus, it is clear that the fees payable to the Commissioner is not to be adjusted in the amount payable to the depositors and it is for the petitioner to bear the expenses out of its own pocket. Therefore, it is made clear that the fees paid or payable to the Commissioner should not be adjusted against the amount so payable to the depositors and the same shall be paid by the petitioner out of its own pocket.
So far the objection raised by the petitioner is concerned, it is the contention of the petitioner that only that day can be said to be working day on which any amount was repaid to the depositors. The submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.3
Refund of the amount is a clerical or ministerial work but the entitlement of the depositors to receive amount is an important aspect. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Commissioner has claimed his fees even for that day on which he had not done any work at all. The interpretation of word ''working day'' done by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that no mistake was committed by the Court below in rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner.
Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDR Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=P.S., A KUMAR postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=f592da990684fe30f8e1e29a4a BARIK 1a9e3451ee450d883083a8e4cc8020ee e6f7cb, cn=MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2019.08.28 18:46:04 +05'30'