9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... what is the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Law is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court, under this Article is limited. 3. In Waryam Singh and another vs. Amarnath and another, AIR 1954, SC 215 , the court observed; This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. V. Sukumar Mukherjee , 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation in question. 9. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that purport of Section 22 of SICA is to protect a sick company from legal proceedings which would foist any additional financial liability upon the sick company and imperil the rehabilitation process. The suit filed by respondent is for recovery of rent, arrears as well as mesne profits and not limited to eviction alone. Therefore, lower courts were required to examine the entire prayer clause of the original suit and not limit the question to eviction alone. 10. In support learned counsel has cited following judgments; (i) Stichting Doen Postcode Loterji Vs. Vin Poly Recyclers Pvt. Ltd. Ors; 167 (2010) Delhi Law Times 333, and (ii) M/s Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd., Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 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-Postcode Loterij Vs. M/S Vin Poly Recyclers Pvt. Ltd. Ors. This judgment is not helpful o the defendant as the facts of the case law cited by the defendant are distinguished from the fact of the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings for execution, distress or the like against any other properties of the industrial company. We are therefore of the view that section 22(1) does not cover a proceeding instituted by a landlord of a sick industrial company for the eviction of the company premises let out to it. 14. Whereas, first appellate court in its impugned order dated 25th May, 2010 observed; Present suit was filed by the plaintiff in January 2009 and written statement was filed by the plaintiff/respondent in April, 2009. Thereafter an application u/o 12 R 6 CPC was also filed which was duly replied by the defendant/appellant. In all these pleadings, the defendant/appellant had not taken any such plea at any point of time that the present proceedings are go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been included by BIFR for preparing the scheme of revival ship of defendant/appellant herein. Further, this is a suit for possession as filed by the plaintiff/respondent against the defendant/appellant on the ground that lease period for which the premises was let out to the plaintiff/respondent has come to an end and, therefore, he be directed to vacate the premises. Plea of the defendant/appellant on the other hand initially was that although the lease period for which it was agreed to have been expired yet it was orally extended. Now the case before the court is that defendant/appellant would never inform the court with respect to the pendency of the proceedings before BIFR nor would take such plea nor would vacate the premises and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree 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 Governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
