2010 (8) TMI 1186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....', AIR 1951 Cal 193 (SB) (B), to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors." 4. In light of principles laid down in the above decision, it is to be seen as to whether present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against impugned orders is maintainable or not. 5. In Narain Singh through LRS. & Ors. Vs. Shanti Devi though LRS. & Ors. 2010 (115) DRJ 601, this court observed; "It is settled law that where two courts below have given a concurrent finding of facts, this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall not disturb the finding even if there is some mistake committed in appreciation of some part of evidence. Under Article 227, the court does not correct the mistakes of law or mistakes of facts. The intervention of this court under Article 227 has to be only in those exceptional cases where the courts below had either not exercised their jurisdiction or had acted beyond jurisdiction or had ignored the well-settled legal proposition and acted contrary to law." 6. Coming to the facts of this case, respond....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof [and no suit for the recovery of money or for the enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company] shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the Appellate Authority." (2) XXX XXX XXX (3) XXX XXX XXX (4) XXX XXX XXX (5) XXX XXX XXX 12. Above Section nowhere states that no suit for possession can be filed against the sick company. 13. Trial court in its impugned order dated 18th March, 2010 observed; "Plaintiff has filed the present suit for possession, mesne profits and permanent injunction. By way of this suit, plaintiff is praying a decree of possession of the tenanted premises B-33/2, Ground Floor, Laxmi Nagar, Vikas Marg, Delhi-110092. Plaintiff also prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from sub-letting/transferring the possession of suit premises to any other person. Counsel for the defendant had placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in case titled as 'Stitching Doen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....adings, the defendant/appellant had not taken any such plea at any point of time that the present proceedings are governed by section 22 of SICA and prior permission of the BIFR are required to prosecute the proceedings. It is matter of record that in the application on behalf of the defendant/appellant for suspension of the legal proceedings, it is informed that the said scheme was referred to the BIFR way back in the year 2002 and BIFR have even sanctioned the revival scheme of the eight subsidiaries of NTC Limited and these proceedings were being continued for long time and despite having all such information well within the knowledge of the defendant/appellant, no such plea was taken by the defendant/appellant either in the written statement or in application u/o 12 R 6 CPC. It is only then, when the matter was fixed for arguments on application u/o 12 R 6 CPC, the present application was filed. Despite all that it has nowhere been stated as to whether present unit of the defendant/appellant for which is being sought had ever been referred/included in the scheme so prepared by the BIFR. It is not even clearly and transparently stated by the defendant/appellant as to whether it ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er, decision of Stichting Doen Postcode Loterji (supra) is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case, as that case was under order 37 of CPC for recovery of money. 17. Thus, in view of decision of Supreme Court in M/s Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. (Supra) there is no reason to disagree with the reasoning given by the courts below and there is no illegality, infirmity or irrationality in the impugned orders. 18. Present petition is most bogus and frivolous one and has been filed just to squander public money and to harass a common man who committed blunder by giving his property on rent to the mighty public undertaking. It is a well known fact that courts across the country are saddled with large number of cases. Public Sector undertakings indulgences further burden them. Time and again, courts have been expressing their displeasure at the Governments‟/Public Sector undertakings compulsive litigation habit but a solution to this alarming trend is a distant dream. The judiciary is now imposing costs upon Government/Public Sector undertakings not only when it pursue cases which can be avoided but also when it forces the public to do so. 19. Public Sector under....