TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled at serial no.2 of the list of documents of the plaintiff dated 4.9.2017. 2. Plaintiff has pleaded that plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises in terms of a scheme of arrangement approved by the Delhi High Court's order dated 3.1.1983 in Company Petition (CP) No. 59/1982. It is pleaded that as per the order of this Court dated 3.1.1983, the right, title and interest of various properties of M/s Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. were vested in the plaintiff, and which included the suit property being part of the properties at Serial no.1(a) of the Schedule II of the Scheme of Arrangement. It is pleaded that defendant in the suit was appointed by the plaintiff company as a Legal Assistant in terms of the appointment letter dated 1.5.2004. The defendant was given the suit property at a licence fee of Rs. 100/- per month by the plaintiff company. Plaintiff company vide its letter dated 23.12.2016 requested the defendant to vacate the suit property as the same was required by the plaintiff company for its bonafide use. Since the defendant failed to vacate the suit property, therefore, the present suit for possession and damages came to be filed. 3. In the written s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1983 in CP No. 59/1982 approving the Scheme Of Arrangement whereby the suit property fell to the ownership of the plaintiff company. As already stated above the suit property falls as one of the properties at Serial no. 1(a) of the Schedule II of the Scheme of Arrangement approved vide order 3.1.1983 by this Court. Therefore, in my opinion, once there is finality to the order of this Court dated 3.1.1983 accompanied by the Scheme of Arrangement, and existence of which is not denied and could not be denied by the defendant, plaintiff has to be held to be the owner of the suit property. 6. Defendant has contended that it is not the plaintiff but one M/s Birla Textile Mills a partnership firm which is the owner of the suit property, however law is well settled that vague pleadings do not constitute sufficient pleadings. If the defendant contends that the suit property was owned by M/s Birla Textile Mills a partnership firm then it was not enough in the written statement merely to plead ownership of M/s Birla Textile Mills but it was also necessary to plead how M/s Birla Textile Mills became the owner and by virtue of which document inasmuch as an immovable property can be only owned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not entitling the defendant to contend that there arises disputed question of fact which requires trial as regards the ownership of the suit property of the plaintiff company. In any case, once again, and at the cost of repetition, this Court has to take as final the order dated 3.1.1983 passed by this Court in CP No. 59/1982, and whereby it is the plaintiff company which will be the owner of the suit property. This defence of the defendant is therefore rejected that the issue of ownership raises a disputed question of fact requiring trial that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property and that it is the DDA which is the owner of the suit property. 8. At this stage, I would like to note that the plaintiff in para 4 of the plaint has specifically referred to appointment of the defendant as a Legal Assistant in terms of the appointment letter dated 1.5.2004 in the written statement. There is no denial that such a letter dated 1.5.2004 existed and was issued to the defendant with respect to the legal relationship of the defendant with the plaintiff company. Once the fact is that there exists a letter dated 1.5.2004 issued by the plaintiff company to the defendant then what ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tio of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Naeem Ahmed (supra). 11. That leaves us with the issue that whether this Court should not decide the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC because the defendant contends that the suit has been overvalued because the valuation for the purpose of possession should be Rs. 78,75,000/- and not Rs. 2 crores as is the case of the plaintiff. Firstly in my opinion, such technical defence should not be permitted for allowing of dishonest defendant to object to allowing of an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Secondly and in any case this Court exercises its power under Section 24 CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India to continue the suit in this Court so that ends of justice are not frustrated by the defendant taking up technical defences of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. 12. So far as the argument of the defendant that the suit is barred because of plaintiff having availed the remedy under Section 630 of the Companies Act, once again this argument and defence is totally frivolous because law can surely provide more than one remedy for one cause of action or one set of facts may le....