LAXMI COTTON CO Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri R.G. Wadhmare, learned senior advocate, with Shri R. R. Waghmare, for the applicants and Shri S.C. Consul for non -applicant No. 1.

(2.) BY the impugned order dated August 17, 1987, the IVth Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Indore, rejected an application filed by the applicants/defendants praying for stay of the suit pending disposal of a criminal case instituted against the applicants allegedly on the same facts and in the same circumstances.

(3.) THE law on the point dates back to a decision of the Supreme Court in Sherif v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397. As noted by S.K. Dubey J., in para 5 of his judgment in New Bank of India's case [1988] Bank J 600 and Sheriff's case, AIR 1954 SC 397, the Supreme Court, in paras 15 and 16 of its judgment, had clearly held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards whether, in every case of parallel proceedings, a civil suit has to be stayed till the disposal of the criminal case. The possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal case is not a relevant consideration and the only relevant consideration is the likelihood of embarrassment. I have discussed the import of Sheriffs case, AIR 1954 SC 397 in a recent decision given by me in Civil Revision No. 293 of 1990 decided on January 15, 1992. Thus, even according to S.K. Dubey J., New Bank of India's case [1988] Bank J 600 was decided in the facts and circumstances of that case alone and does not and could not lay down a ruling for universal application. The decision of the Supreme Court in Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., AIR 1988 SC 2118, was also cited before me. It is a case of a departmental enquiry and the question was whether the departmental enquiry should be deferred till the disposal of the criminal case. The Supreme Court observed that, whether, in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, there should or should not be such simultaneity of the proceedings would have to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. It was reiterated that it was neither possible nor advisable to evolve a hard and fast, straight -jacket formula valid for all cases and of general application without regard to the particularities of the individual situation. One more ruling deserves mention as it was cited at the Bar and that is a Delhi High Court decision in Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. Behari Lal Madanlal Jaipuria Ltd., AIR 1990 Delhi 241. This decision follows the observations of the Supreme Court in Sheriff's case, AIR 1954 SC 397 and Kusheshwar Dubey's case, AIR 1988 SC 2118, it was observed by the court in this case that it was not necessary to always stay proceedings in a civil action. Where the proceedings in a civil action should be stayed or whether parallel proceedings, both criminal and civil may continue depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rules have been laid down and can be laid down on this aspect. There is no legal bar to the continuance of civil and criminal proceedings simultaneously. Whether simultaneous criminal complaints and civil suits are filed for recovery of money for the goods supplied but the main aspect to be proved in civil suit would be whether the goods were supplied by the plaintiffs to the defendants, its value and whether the payment had been made or not and the court would not be concerned with the allegations of dishonest intention, manipulation and fraud made by the plaintiffs in criminal complaint, it would not be necessary to stay the civil proceedings pending disposal of criminal complaint, as the criminal complaint and suit are not grounded on the same foundation.