R.S.Enterprises And Another vs. Jindal Yarns PVT. LTD.
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 131 CR-5417-2024 Date of Decision.:18.09.2024 R.S. Enterprises and another
…..Pe//oners Vs. Jindal Yarns Pvt. Ltd.
.….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the peoners. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoners herein are the defendants before the trial Court in civil suit tled “Jindal Yarns Pvt. Ltd. v. R.S. Enterprises and others” pending before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat. The suit is for mandatory injuncon. Defendants moved an applicaon under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejecon of the plaint, which has been dismissed by the trial Court, against which this revision has been filed.
Learned counsel contends that in the garb of a suit for mandatory injuncon, plainff wanted to effect the recovery and therefore, plainff was required to pay the ad valorem Court fee. Learned counsel refers to “Jai Sai Ram Steel Private Ltd. v. Ramesh Singla” 2021(3) Law Herald 2410. 3. A8er hearing learned counsel for the peoner and going through the paper-book, this Court does not find merit in this revision NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.19 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR-5417-2024 -2- peon.
The impugned order (Annexure P-1) as passed by the trial Court would indicate that as per case set up by the plainff (respondent herein), the defendants had charged an amount of ₹22,80,551.56/- towards CGST and SGST as per the invoices from the plainff but did not deposit the same with the concerned authories, due to which those authories were alleging that no supplies had been made by the plainff- respondent and were asking the plainff to deposit the amount. It was with these averments that plainff prayed to issue decree of mandatory injuncon to direct the defendants to deposit the amount, as recovered by the defendants from the plainff, to the concerned authories.
Learned trial Court has rightly observed that plainff was not seeking the recovery of the amount for itself. Rather, the prayer of the plainff was to direct the defendants to make payment to the concerned authories, which amount had been earlier recovered by the defendants from the plainff by issuing necessary invoices to the plainff. In these circumstances, plainff was not liable to pay the Court fees on the amount of ₹22,80,551.56/-.
The facts of “Jai Sai Ram Steel Private Ltd. v. Ramesh Singla” relied by counsel for the peoner are quite disnguishable because in that suit, in order to recover the definite amount for himself, plainff had filed a suit for mandatory injuncon and it was in those circumstances that this Court held that when suit is for recovery of amount although cleverly projected as a suit for grant of mandatory injuncon, then plainff cannot save himself from payment of Court fee by clever dra8ing. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.19 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CR-5417-2024 -3-
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the peon. Dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE September 18, 2024 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2024.09.19 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.