Rajiv Jain v. Financial Commissioner Delhi and Ors

* + W.P.(C) 2520/2017

RAJIV JAIN

..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Baliyan, Advocate

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER DELHI AND ORS..... Respondents Ms. Aayushi Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2

%

CM No.10884/2017

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application is disposed of.

WP(C) No.2520/2017 & CM No.10883/2017

The petitioner has suffered the Award dated 29.7.1999 for Rs.14,19,952/-, with further interest @ 18% p.a. and penal interest @ 2% p.a. until realisation of the claim.

¶2The facts, it may be noted, are rather peculiar, for bank account in the name of Arihant Enterprises, Loha Mandi, Narayana, New Delhi was opened by Vijay Jain, an employee of Rajiv Jain, as proprietor of the said concern. As per the findings recorded, this account actually "belonged" to Rajiv Jain and he was also having a current account No.106 in the name of his other company, Jain Steels, Loha Mandi, Narayana, New Delhi, with the Cooperative Bank. Rajiv Jain had obtained a Letter of Authority dated

13.7.1992 from Vijay Jain to operate the account of Arihant Enterprises. Subsequently, Rajiv Jain issued cheques from his own concern, which were deposited in the account of Arihant Enterprises. Demand drafts and pay orders were issued to Arihant Enterprises, without awaiting clearance of these cheques, which were not honoured.

¶3We may note that the petitioner was prosecuted for offences under Sections 420, 465, 120-B and 471 IPC and acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate. On the appeal being filed by the CBI, the petitioner was convicted under Section 120-B and Section 420 of the IPC. Revision preferred by the petitioner is pending in the High Court. The petitioner is on bail.

¶4The petitioner had challenged the Recovery Notice and the Warrant of Arrest dated 16.5.2013 issued under Section 69 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act for recovery of the amounts due under the Arbitration Award. This notice is for recovery of Rs.14,19,952/-. The impugned order dismissed the challenge to the Warrant of Arrest.

¶5The contention of the petitioner that the Warrant of Arrest is barred by limitation, as the same has been issued after 12 years, after the Award dated

29.7.1999 was passed, is misconceived and has to be rejected. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the Award which was dismissed vide the order dated 6.7.2000 and thereafter the petitioner had filed WP(C) No.3738/2000, which was dismissed vide order dated 8.5.2001. The period of limitation is prescribed for setting the execution in motion and does not operate after the execution proceedings have been instituted. The contention is, therefore, misconceived. Once the execution proceedings were filed, the limitation would stop running.

¶6The petitioner submits that another Warrant of Arrest, dated

13.1.2017, has been issued in which the total amount due and payable is Rs.8,57,329/-. He also submits that as per the CBI, an amount of Rs.4,76,555/- as on 3.3.2000 was due. This obviously refers to the principal amount and to this extent, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute to the said factum. The recovery or execution proceedings are in respect of the Award, which has attained finality. The amount quantified by the CBI is irrelevant.

¶7It is obviously open to the petitioner to point out and state that he has made payments or part payments. The impugned order does not call for any interference.

¶8Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the morning, had stated that the petitioner was ready and willing to make the payments. We had passed over the matter to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to obtain instructions. At 4:30 pm, when the matter is called out, learned counsel states that he has not received instructions.

¶9In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. CM No.10883/2017 is also dismissed.

MARCH 20, 2017 tp * + W.P.(C) 941/2016

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Petitioner Ms. Mrinalini Sen Gupta & Ms. Sarita Panda, Advocates

SAVITRI HANS

..... Respondent Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj & Mr. M.D. Jangra, Advocates

%

CM No.10563/2017 Some typographical errors noticed in the order dated 13.1.2017 have been corrected and initialled in today's date. The corrected copy will be uploaded. The order dated 13.1.2017 does not require any clarification. The applicant had appeared as a partially qualified candidate in 2010, when she had cleared paper-III Allied Laws. Subsequently, she had cleared Paper-I – Income Tax Law and Computation in 2012 and Paper-IV – Income Tax & Accountancy in 2013. In our order dated 13.1.2017, we had held that the applicant cannot be treated as qualified as an old pattern candidate, for she has failed to clear Paper-I-Income-Tax Law and Computation and Paper-IV-Income Tax & Accountancy in one single examination. This was mandatory for the old pattern candidates. In view of the aforesaid position, we had allowed the writ petition and in the last para, had observed:- "18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present writ petition WP(C) No.941/2016 Page 9 of 9 and set aside the impugned order dated 28th April, 2015. OA No.1624/2014 filed by the respondent will be treated as dismissed. We would, however, clarify that it is for the respondent to decide as to whether she wants to appear as a partially qualified candidate or a normal candidate. In whichever category she chooses to apply, she would have to comply and abide by the rules, which are mandatory. There would be no order as to costs."

It is, therefore, clear that the applicant had the option to appear as an old pattern candidate or as a normal candidate, as per her option. We have not expressed any opinion on whether, if she appears as a normal candidate, she will be entitled to the benefits of papers cleared by her in the years 2010, 2012 and 2013. This issue would abide by the Rules. We have examined the letter dated 21.1.2017 and 18.2.2017 written by the applicant to the authorities. We would observe that the applicant should not have referred to any oral observations, for these were remarks made during the course of hearing of the arguments and not a firm or conclusive mandate/finding. With the aforesaid observations, we would hold that the application for clarification does not have any merit and should be dismissed. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, submits that the applicant is confused and should be informed whether she would be entitled to benefit of papers cleared by her in the year 2010, 2012 and 2013, if she appears as a normal candidate. We would appreciate that the authorities, being a model employer, inform the applicant about the actual position and clarify her doubt. With the aforesaid observations, the application is dismissed.

MARCH 20, 2017 tp * + W.P.(C) 1826/2016

ASHOK KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Mr. Padma Kumar, S., Advocate

CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents

Mr. Shiva Sharma, Advocate

%

Relist on 21.3.2017.

MARCH 20, 2017 tp * + W.P.(C) 2504/2017

ARUN KUMAR & ORS

..... Petitioners

Mr. Hari Nath Ram, Advocate

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Respondents Mr. Vijay Joshi, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2

Mr. S. Rajappa, Advocate for respondent No.3

%

Respondent No.3 will produce the Recruitment Rules on the next date of hearing. Relist on 13.4.2017.

MARCH 20, 2017 tp * + W.P.(C) 2516/2017 &CM Nos.10876-77/2017

DEV KUMAR

..... Petitioner

Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Advocate

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

..... Respondents

Mr. Vikas Mahajan, CGSC Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for UPSC

%

When the matter is called out on the second occasion, request for an adjournment is made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that due to personal reasons, he had to leave the Court.

Relist on 24.3.2017.

MARCH 20, 2017/tp * + W.P.(C) 2483/2017

UNION PULBIC SERVICE COMMISSION ..... Petitioner

Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate

MUKESH KUMAR ROHILLA & ORS

..... Respondents Mr. Chiranjiv Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2

%

This issue appears to be covered by the decision of this Court in WP(C) No.953/2016 titled Sanjeev Kumar Saxena v. Union of India & Ors.

At request of learned counsel for the petitioner, relist on 29.3.2017.

MARCH 20, 2017 tp * + LPA 181/2017

NANDITA NARAIN

..... Appellant Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Reeja Varghese, Mr. Sunil Mathews & Ms. Sabah Iqbal Siddiqui, Advocates

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS

..... Respondents Mr. Sudhir Nandarajog, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3

Mr. Romy Chacko & Mr. Shubham Singh, Advocates for respondent Nos.4 & 6

Mr. Rajesh Gogna, CGSC for respondent No.10

%

CM No.10522/2017 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.

Respondents would produce before us in a sealed cover, if required and necessary, the Fact Finding Inquiry Report on the next date of hearing. LPA No.181/2017 & CM Nos.10523-24/2017

Issue notice to show cause as to why the appeal be not admitted, returnable on 30.3.2017. Notice is accepted on behalf of respondent Nos.1,2,3,4,6 and 10.

MARCH 20, 2017 tp * + W.P.(C) 4543/2014

SHIWAM KUMAR

..... Petitioner Mr. C. Hari Shankar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Sunil, Advocate

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR ..... Respondents Mr. Naresh Kaushik & Ms. Shriambhra, Advocates for UPSC Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Advocate for UOI

%

In view of the order passed in WP(C) No.2393/2016, relist on

6.7.2017.

MARCH 20, 2017 tp * + W.P.(C) 2393/2016

PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAV

..... Petitioner Mr. C. Hari Shankar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Sunil, Advocate

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR..... Respondents Mr. Naresh Kaushik & Ms. Shriambhra, Advocates for UPSC Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate for UOI

%

Request for a passover is made on behalf of the learned counsel for the Union of India. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that he would be in difficulty if the matter is taken-up in the post-lunch session. Relist on 6.7.2017.

MARCH 20, 2017/tp * + W.P.(C) 2471/2017 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ..... Petitioner Mr. Anurag Dubey & Mr. Meenesh Dubey, Advocates

CENTRAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES & ANR ..... Respondents Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna & Mr. Siddharth Nagpal, Advocates

%

CM No.10701/2017 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of.

WP(C) No.2471/2017 & CM No.10700/2017 At request of learned counsel for the respondents, who states that he would obtain instructions, whether the letter dated 8.2.2017 is an order appointing an arbitrator, or is a request to the Central Registrar, Cooperative Societies to consider the allegation/dispute received for appointment of an arbitrator. Reliance is placed by the petitioner on the order dated 15.12.2015, in WP(C) No.1525/2015 titled Mechanical Department Primary Cooperative Bank v. Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Relist on 24.3.2017. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

MARCH 20, 2017 tp * + W.P.(C) 9911/2016

MANJU

..... Petitioner

Mr. Ravi Dahiya, Advocate

DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BAORD (DSSSB) & ORS.

..... Respondents Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4

Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.3

%

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 prays for and is granted last opportunity to file counter-affidavit within four weeks from today, failing which the said respondents shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner for today's adjournment and delay. It is made clear that if the counter-affidavit is not filed within four weeks, costs would have to be paid by the said respondents to the petitioner. Rejoinder will be filed within four weeks after the counter-affidavit is served.

Relist on 1.8.2017.

MARCH 20, 2017/tp * + W.P.(C) 2472/2017 CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION OF ADDL. / JOINT SECRETARY & EQUIVALENT OFFICERS..... Petitioner

Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate

UNION OF INDIA & ANR

..... Respondents

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC

%

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM No.10702/2017

The application is disposed of.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar issue arises in WP(C) No.6002/2016 titled All India S-30 Pensioners Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which is listed on 2.8.2017. WP(C) No.2472/2017 Issue notice, returnable on 2.8.2017. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC, who appears on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

MARCH 20, 2017/tp * + W.P.(C) 2490/2017 & CM No.10768/2017

UNION OF INDIA & ORS

..... Petitioners

Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate

HEMLATA

..... Respondent

%

At request of learned counsel for the petitioner, relist on 29.3.2017.

MARCH 20, 2017 tp